Just imagine: A US election-year deal with Iran

In 1980, Democrat Jimmy Carter was humiliated by an extremist Iranian government and, consequently, thrown out of the presidency by a righteous Republican. Imagine the impact on US politics if Democrat Barack Obama, with his European allies, now reaches an agreement with Iran that allows for the peaceful development of nuclear power in Iran, comprehensive inspection, and the lifting of Western economic sanctions. 

Richard Nixon could go to China; after all, it was a Democrat who “lost” China in the first place. But can Obama make peace with Iran? Must America, after 32 years, continue to wait for a new generation of Republican neo-cons to finish the job?

Robert Wright, Pulitzer prize–winning senior editor at The Atlantic notes that the conservative Washington Times is already insisting that Obama stand down and let things continue to fester. In “The Iran Hawks’ Latest Misleading Meme,” Wright predicts:  

“In this mission the Times will be joined by many allies on the right. So prepare yourself for warnings about how Iran is getting "the upper hand," as the Times put it, in the negotiations. If a deal starts to look likely, we may hear that Iran is "thumbing its nose" at us or that America is "capitulating" or "abjectly submitting" to Iranian demands. And let's not forget those hardy perennials, "Munich" and "appeasement."

Click on: www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/the-iran-hawks-latest-misleading-meme/256048/

There’re few blessings ever for the peacemaker.

A credible deal, however, would carry one crass consolation for the president: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney wouldn’t call it honorable, but they’d have little left to say about souring oil prices.

Memo to Washington: Give Putin the Cameron treatment

Europe didn’t invent gun powder, politics, or political vanity. Yet, it’s obvious that European leaders are crazy about state dinners in the White House.

Furthermore, vanity is one thing Vladimir Putin definitely has in common with his counterparts in Western Europe. It’s also widely agreed that we’d all be safer, and America’s pre-election recovery surer, if the newly elected president of Russia was more oriented toward the West’s interests in his thinking.

Mr. President, let them moralize up in Boston and out in San Francisco about which one of you has the best team of billionaires. It’s time Putin was invited to Washington and treated like a very powerful winner who could make a strategic difference in the world. (There’s not much to say to him about the past that hasn’t been wasted on the Brits or that Putin would be open to reconsider.)

It’s diplomatic to go on about our “essential” relationship with Great Britain when you’re dining with David Cameron. But, don’t let that interfere with your priorities or your appointment schedule.

It’s interesting that Cameron’s government may try to help avoid, temporarily, along with others, a price spike in crude oil prices this summer, one that would harm the US recovery and drive voters crazy.

Click on: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/15/u-s-britain-to-agree-emergency-oil-stocks-release/?__lsa=d820b2e3

He’s agreeable, but he is not very influential—either in Europe or globally. Putin is difficult, but he has considerable influence; in the Middle East, on oil supply, as well as on oil prices. The tide of world events, including confidence in representative democracy, will carry on with or without the Rt. Hon. David Cameron. Fair or not, however, Putin’s performance will make a difference globally.

Mr. President, you are making compromises in order to be able to make more compromises for another four years.

After the November election, you hope to talk sense with Mitch McConnell on a whole range of American problems. Let`s practice that kind of problem-solving by working on a few problems in the world with Vladimir Putin.

Neither Putin nor McConnell are going to go away.

Harper’s advice to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu

Next Friday, Benjamin Netanyahu will be meeting Stephen Harper in advance of his visit to Washington for further talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israel, the United States, Canada, and their western allies are trying to bully Iran into giving up its efforts to become a military nuclear power. The bullies are not always of one mind, and their collective success requires a high degree of uncertainty in Tehran about how far they will go. Consequently, many scary things get said and many difficult meetings must be held.

Matters must be coordinated because things can’t get out of hand—for instance, an unintended war. The US cannot afford to conquer Iran, Israel cannot secure the peace alone, and none of the politicians can get re-elected if they crash the world economy.  

After watching Republican presidential candidates (excepting Ron Paul and his billionaire bagman) saber-rattle last night, it’s clear what Harper should say to Netanyahu:

—Taking military action now, without US government support, would be indefensible.

—The alliance and the sanctions that the United States has put together have Canada’s full support. As the sanctions tighten, diplomatic opportunities and change will emerge in Iran.

—Acting as an alliance allows for future vital cooperation with Russia and possibly even with China. Unilateral action, however, will isolate Israel.

—If Harper doesn’t want to sound like an old softy, he can get personal: “My closest political ally is Barack Obama and if you go to Washington and embarrass him again I’ll be disappointed.”

—If Netanyahu pulls out a Wall Street Journal clipping about the delay of the Keystone Project, Harper can, in truth, say, “If you screw up Obama’s economic recovery and re-election chances by unilaterally bombing Iran you’ll not have a tinkle of support from Canada, your new best friend.”

After the meeting, Stephen Harper, prime minister of the country with the world’s best listeners, will call Barack Obama to tell him what he may expect.

Gasoline prices and political stability

“The price of gasoline in Iran rose four-fold on Sunday while a heavy police presence ensured there was no repeat of rioting seen the last time the government restricted access to heavily subsidized fuel. Motorists had been expecting the rise for the past three months as part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policy to phase out subsidies on essentials such as energy, food and water, so the midnight price hike was accepted with grim resignation.

Up until Sunday, subsidies had allowed Iranians -- who see cheap fuel in the oil-rich country as a birthright -- to pay just 1,000 rials (about US10¢) per litre for the first 60 litres they buy per month.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/Iran+prices+skyrocket+police+alert/4002117/story.html

The long economic boycott of Iran may be starting to bite. The regime must be in dire financial circumstances because about the last thing tyrannies surrender is subsidized gasoline prices.

Due primarily to China’s rise, it is now widely held that authoritarian states can successfully host world-class capitalist economies. Certainly, for a long time, many such states have allowed the few to make extraordinary profits. However, the gasoline market still demonstrates a strong positive correlation between stable democratic governments and free market pricing.

This is important if emerging economies are to generating wider prosperity through the most efficient allocation of resources. Of course, governments that are unsure of their legitimacy are also less likely to stop subsidizing the wasteful use of polluting sources of energy.

In Western democracies, citizens shoulder adult political responsibilities and, as consumers, their governments generally feel they can treat them as adults as well. If they can afford it, tyrannies prefer to treat their subjects like children. For instance, the governments of  Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are financed almost entirely by export revenues from depleting oil reserves, have for decades asked their consumers to pay as little as 25 % of the market price of fossil fuels.

When a cartoon of reality becomes a joke

Two of America’s best-known Republican intellectuals may have reached the outer reaches of their credibility. If they keep it up, we’ll start hearing branches falling off the GOP. Peggy Noonan whispered to Obama to hire a “special assistant for reality.” Saying:

“What a president should ideally have, and what I think we all agree Mr. Obama badly needs, is an assistant whose sole job it is to explain and interpret the American people to him. Presidents already have special assistants for domestic policy, for congressional relations and national security. Why not a special assistant for reality? Someone to translate the views of the people, and explain how they think. An advocate for the average, a representative for the normal, to the extent America does normal.”

Rehearsing for the job of second-guessing 536 elected representatives of the American people, she proceeds to explain the fuss at the airport. It’s that inner John Wayne, the muse of her speech-writing career for President Reagan. Savour this:

“John Wayne removes his boots and hat and puts his six-shooter on the belt, he gets through the scanner, and now he’s standing there and sees what’s being done to other people. A TSA guy is walking toward him, snapping his rubber gloves. Guy gets up close to Wayne, starts feeling his waist and hips. Wayne says, “Touch the jewels, Pilgrim, and I’ll knock you into tomorrow.”

Click on:http://peggynoonan.com/ 

Do normal Americans check in with their John Wayne fantasy when waiting at airports? Do frustrated, tired voters put their X compulsively beside the hardest ass on the ballot?
Are traditional American characteristics of practicality and respect for the complexity of modern life only alive amongst elites?
Charles Krauthammer, the Mars of conservative polemicists, probably doesn’t really care. His antagonism toward Obama seems existential; in serving it, he feels better. However, his screed, “The irrelevance of START,” baldy appeals to those who think telling Obama to “man up” is wit. Dismissing a treaty that would further shrink nuclear arsenals and resume mutual verification, he asserted:

“A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest. …Moreover, Obama's idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish.”

Click on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502232.html
Was it only the clash of ideas that kept us up during the Cold War? Have Russian generals stopped drinking vodka? Can American military strategists never have nervous breakdown? Can the world be assured that the two powers that hold over 90% of the world nuclear weapons are fail-safe? Not a single former Republican or Democratic Secretary of State agrees. They see substantive merit in reducing nuclear weapons now and increasing respectful, reliable relations with Russia.
Krauthammer sees Obama’s efforts to get the Senate to ratify the New Start treaty as a distraction. It is a distraction to him because he’s not interested in joint Russia, US, and UN Security Council measures to dissuade Iran, or in joint China, US, and South Korean measures to dissuade North Korea. His inner John Wayne is still on his horse: diplomacy, economic boycotts, and alliances with others are for children and dwarfs.
The Russian defense machine could spend Russia into penury, but America can afford to keep its growing forever. Apparently, America can tame Iran without the cooperation of her neighbours, including Russia. And can handle North Korea that way too.
Presumably, Krauthammer’s America can afford to act unilaterally and violently on another two fronts. Inside the bubble of responsibility, however, Obama and his advisors have chosen a different approach. Along with reality, they may end up with politics on their side as well.