Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 May 2016, 4:20 pm

danivon wrote:Sorry, how does that back up the line I specifically queried with you, that Rhodes was "bragging" about "fooling" everyone?


It doesn't. Did you read the article? Have you noticed Rhodes now backtracking? Why is that?

From the article:

In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.


In other words, the entire narrative about the deal with Iran was a lie.

In fact, Rhodes’s passion seems to derive not from any investment in the technical specifics of sanctions or centrifuge arrays, or any particular optimism about the future course of Iranian politics and society. Those are matters for the negotiators and area specialists. Rather, it derived from his own sense of the urgency of radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely. When I asked whether the prospect of this same kind of far-reaching spin campaign being run by a different administration is something that scares him, he admitted that it does. “I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” he said, shrugging. “But that’s impossible.”


Rhodes and Obama know more about the Middle East than anyone--just ask them. They knew that by lying to the American people and, in effect, strengthening Iran's hand in the region, the US would be less likely to engage in conflict . . . because Iran would be the pre-eminent power in the region, which is just fine with Rhodes/Obama.

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

In this environment, Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

“I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “but — ”

“In fact it’s a sign of strength!” I said, chuckling.


Rhodes misled the media--after all they were 27 year-old know-nothings--who then misled the American public.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 May 2016, 12:43 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, how does that back up the line I specifically queried with you, that Rhodes was "bragging" about "fooling" everyone?


It doesn't.
No. Because it is you extrapolating.

Perhaps the problem is that media outlets are employing young naifs as journalists on foreign affairs.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 May 2016, 8:10 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, how does that back up the line I specifically queried with you, that Rhodes was "bragging" about "fooling" everyone?


It doesn't.
No. Because it is you extrapolating.

Perhaps the problem is that media outlets are employing young naifs as journalists on foreign affairs.


Sure, but he boasted about taking advantages of them to (essentially) deceive the American people, which is why he spent the next few days tap dancing. You can either look at the evidence available and come to that conclusion or stick your head in the sand.

The piece was clearly a source of frustration for the White House, which is looking to burnish Obama’s foreign policy record during his final year in office.

His comments provided fresh ammunition to Obama’s political opponents who say the White House deceived the public about the Iran deal, a major second-term achievement for the president. http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... s-comments
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 May 2016, 12:44 pm

I read the article. I found it hard to tell the dividing line between actual facts and the author's subjective opinions. I note that the Hill piece said that two of the so-called press facilitators for the Administration are strongly disagreeing with how they were presented.

It turns out the author of the piece is probably against the deal which almost certainly colored his depiction of Rhodes and how the Administration presented the deal.

https://lobelog.com/samuels-rhodes-and- ... he-source/

Moreover, a key assertion of the piece--that the Administration successively deceived the American people about when the negotiations started, that they only started after moderates were elected--seems pretty ridiculous when it was publicly known that negotiations started before Rouhani was elected. Here is an article from the Guardian from July 14, 2015 indicating that secret talks began in March, 2013 before Rouhani was elected. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... s-timeline

Here is a more complete discussion of the timeline, indicating preliminary contacts had occurred in 2012. This was published in August, 2015.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -nuke-deal

So all this information was available to Republicans in September, 2015 when they were trying to block the deal. The only thing that is curious is why Rhodes agree to an article from an author biased towards Israel.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 May 2016, 12:57 pm

freeman3 wrote:Here is a more complete discussion of the timeline, indicating preliminary contacts had occurred in 2012. This was published in August, 2015.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -nuke-deal


But, this is not the way the White House presented the deal--and that's the point. They made an issue of the "moderate" being elected and thus the start of the negotiations.

So all this information was available to Republicans in September, 2015 when they were trying to block the deal. The only thing that is curious is why Rhodes agree to an article from an author biased towards Israel.


They should have blocked it. It's a treaty and should have been treated as one. Furthermore, it will lead to an Iranian nuke.

The "curious" thing to me is why Obama and Rhodes fancy themselves experts on the region and are willing to make Iran the regional hegemon.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 May 2016, 12:50 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Here is a more complete discussion of the timeline, indicating preliminary contacts had occurred in 2012. This was published in August, 2015.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -nuke-deal


But, this is not the way the White House presented the deal--and that's the point. They made an issue of the "moderate" being elected and thus the start of the negotiations.
On the other hand, was it not becoming clear that the moderates were more likely to win, given the way that Ahmedinejad had become a busted flush and Rafsanjani was becoming more prominent in support of the less conservative clerical faction?

I imagine it was clearer to the Iranian leadership, if not to many of us in the West.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 May 2016, 12:54 pm

danivon wrote:I imagine it was clearer to the Iranian leadership, if not to many of us in the West.


A Billy Joel song comes to mind. I'd slightly modify the lyrics: you're in a drive-by state of mind.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 May 2016, 12:54 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:I imagine it was clearer to the Iranian leadership, if not to many of us in the West.


A Billy Joel song comes to mind. I'd slightly modify the lyrics: you're in a drive-by state of mind.

Well, that was in no way an obtuse response...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 May 2016, 1:20 pm

Your assessment is plausible and reasonable and might be true, Owen--but I suspect something else was going on. There were significant protests in Iran from 2010-2012, which sanctions no doubt helped to create. So I believe conservatives recognized that not doing anything with regard to sanctions posed a threat to their power. They had to show they were at least trying to get rid of sanctions. But I doubt they would have ever gone along with dismantling the program, as our conservatives dream.

If you think about it, the agreement definitely reduced the chances of building a program in the next 10-15 years. Before they could do what they wanted; now, it is much, much harder to do it. The only downside is that they might be able to cause more mischief because they have more money to support terrorism. But the nuclear threat is reduced for 10-15 years at least--unless you really belief that proud Iran would have submitted to the West and dismantled its program if we were able to hold the line on sanctions. A big if, as well.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 May 2016, 1:24 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:I imagine it was clearer to the Iranian leadership, if not to many of us in the West.


A Billy Joel song comes to mind. I'd slightly modify the lyrics: you're in a drive-by state of mind.

Well, that was in no way an obtuse response...


No, it was quite precise. You're playing "The Sniper" today. Add nothing, just snipe.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 May 2016, 1:35 pm

freeman3 wrote:Your assessment is plausible and reasonable and might be true, Owen--but I suspect something else was going on. There were significant protests in Iran from 2010-2012, which sanctions no doubt helped to create. So I believe conservatives recognized that not doing anything with regard to sanctions posed a threat to their power. They had to show they were at least trying to get rid of sanctions. But I doubt they would have ever gone along with dismantling the program, as our conservatives dream.
Indeed. Perhaps it was about trying to prevent a moderate win in the elections. And in a sense what happened was that they managed to get the least moderate of the moderates in (Karroubi and Mousavi who had stood in 2009 were under house arrest and still are), but the events in Iran before the 2013 election were clearly pointing to rising dissatisfaction with the hardliners of Ahmedinejad. In 2009 they could get away with what was a clear repression of the public mood, but not twice.

What will be interesting is next year's Iranian elections.

If you think about it, the agreement definitely reduced the chances of building a program in the next 10-15 years. Before they could do what they wanted; now, it is much, much harder to do it. The only downside is that they might be able to cause more mischief because they have more money to support terrorism. But the nuclear threat is reduced for 10-15 years at least--unless you really belief that proud Iran would have submitted to the West and dismantled its program if we were able to hold the line on sanctions. A big if, as well.
It's clearly not a perfect agreement. But it's better than the preceding position. With issues as they are in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan & Yemen, what would the US really be able to do about Iran in terms of threat?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 May 2016, 2:37 pm

freeman3
The only downside is that they might be able to cause more mischief because they have more money to support terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't require a huge budget.
They probably had all they required before the sanctions.
On the other hand Iranian paras are fighting Daesh. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Enemy of my enemy) and if its good would an increased budget for these paras be beneficial?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 May 2016, 4:04 pm

rickyp wrote:freeman3
The only downside is that they might be able to cause more mischief because they have more money to support terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't require a huge budget.


This doesn't make much sense. If terrorism doesn't cost a lot, then more money will allow you to purchase more of it at a lower price, yes?

If hockey pucks only cost $1 instead of $5 each, then you can still purchase many more of them with a large influx of money. (I could have used Tim Horton's dopughnuts as an example, also) :wink:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 May 2016, 6:21 am

bbauska
This doesn't make much sense. If terrorism doesn't cost a lot, then more money will allow you to purchase more of it at a lower price, yes?

No.
Terrrorism is generally carried out by small groups, or even individuals, who manage to find a sureptitious path to a generally soft target. These groups or individuals are not mercenaries. They are very committed to a cause because often as not they will end up dead after committing the act of terror. And they know this.
More money doesn't buy more of these people. And they are the essential ingredient.
More money could buy more sophisticated weaponary, but the problem of secreting the weaponary until in postion becomes more difficult.
The most damaging acts of terror in the US were enacted with no more weaponary than box cutters or a pick up truck full of fertilizer.
The terrorists in Paris had bombs and automatic rifles. They didn't need extravagant funds to buy more weapons or bigger weapons.
Terror is the weapon of the weak, and disadvantaged. And usually the hopeless.
When terror is resorted to, those who sponsor the groups don't need deep pockets.
Iran has provided support to groups primarily for bombings. They don't need billions more to provide more bombs. Thousands of dollars will do and have been sufficient. The problem in ramping up these kinds of acts is not financial, but is finding sufficiently motivated people to carry out the acts. Thats not a big money thing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism

They did support clandestine groups in Iraq resisting the American occupation. Those groups would involve a potentially higher level of financial sipport as it was a long term military (guerrilla) operation. But this was accomplished when sanctions were in place anyway. And is not required today, as the Iraqis govenrment is now very closely aligned to Tehran.
The military adventure in Syria, might benefit from greater funds. But, it was accomplished before funds were released from the sanctions, so its obvious that the sanctions relief is not required for this action. And apparently the help is limited to committed officers of the Iranian Revolutionary guard and a type of foreign legion... Mostly the limits to this would be finding suitable foreign personnel. The Iranians won't send ordinary Iranian soldiers into the conflict, presumably because there is not sufficient support domestically. Too many deaths of conscripts would create unrest within Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_i ... _Civil_War
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 May 2016, 6:32 am

rickyp wrote:The most damaging acts of terror in the US were enacted with no more weaponary than box cutters or a pick up truck full of fertilizer. /quote]

So, is it better for terrorists to have a lot of money or a little money?

The terrorists in Paris had bombs and automatic rifles. They didn't need extravagant funds to buy more weapons or bigger weapons.


So, if they could buy armor vehicles with mounted cannons or Apache gunships, it would make no difference? More money would not help them kill more people?

Terror is the weapon of the weak, and disadvantaged. And usually the hopeless.


That is as banal as it is specious. Osama Bin Laden and countless rich people have engaged in terror. Iran's mullahs are not poor, but they support terror. Many Royals in Saudi Arabia support terror.

Terror is the weapon of the wicked. They do not care who they kill; they just want body count. That's not weakness; it's wickedness.