We commend SG @AntonioGuterres & his call for the UN to focus more on people & less on bureaucracy. #USAatUNGA #UNGA https://t.co/KVvCMznmcN pic.twitter.com/UQn6RrC9Xw— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2017
ADDED: Nikki Haley was on "State of the Union" yesterday, and the host Dana Bash played her a clip of Trump saying:
"The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It's not a friend to freedom. It's not a friend even to the United States of America, where, as you know, it has its home. And it surely is not a friend to Israel."Bash then paraphased that — very unfairly I think — in the question: "Will the president stick by his America-first message when he appears before the U.N. this coming week?"
Haley did not do what I'd have done with that question — say that it's just plain wrong to translate that statement of Trump's into "his America-first message." He spoke of democracy and freedom, principles that matter to all human beings, and he criticized the U.N. for its hostility to the United States and to Israel. To object to bad treatment is not to demand to be put first.
Haley avoids repeating and reinforcing Bash's phrase. Here's what she said, which you can see restates and augments what Trump said:
Well, I think you have to look at the fact that what he said at the time was accurate. I mean, I think we saw a United Nations where the United States was giving over 25 percent of the funding and was being utterly disrespected and a United Nations that was bashing Israel every chance they get, a United Nations that talked a lot, but didn't have a lot of action. And now we can say, it is a new day at the U.N. What you are now seeing is the Israel -- the Israel-bashing has become more balanced. You've got a United Nations that's action-orientated. We've passed two resolutions on North Korea just in the last month. And you also have a United Nations that is totally moving towards reform. You have a secretary-general who's come out with a massive reform package. We said that we needed to get value for our dollar. And what we're finding is the international community is right there with us in support of reform. So, it is a new day at the U.N. I think that the pleas that he made in terms of trying to see change at the United Nations have been heard. And I think what we'll do is see him respond to that come on Tuesday.
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
Not only is reform of the UN inadvisable (ya can’t reform that which is inherently evil), it’s impossible. For too many, most notably the Muslim bloc (about 55 votes), the UN is the best soapbox they’ll ever have. And that bloc plus the other thug-run members of the UN use it to tear down the West and Israel. Endlessly.
But what we can do is leave the UN.
As the old Birch slogan told it, “The US Out of the UN & the UN Out of the US”
To this end there is a pending bill to do at least the first part of the slogan, American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/text?format=txt
http://ipatriot.com/time-come-repeal-united-nations-participation-act-1945/
I remember a time many years ago Trump sat before congress and said we needed to get the UN out of the US and sell the property.
I want that Trump in the white house.
I get the sentiment about the U.S. out of the U.N. We can tackle that right after we impeach Earl Warren.
The UN - blue helmets, Islamic fuckwads and "international" lawyers who stand by and watch genocide happen - then ponder how to sue one side or the other. If you're lucky, you won't get raped by a blue helmet.
Leftists love the UN.
The U.N. is a U.S. invention and well worth its cost.
But it needs to be taken sriously and worked like a political institution, bare knuckles style. It is not a magic sesame to a utopian better world as liberal Democrats tend to imagine it.
I remember a time many years ago Trump sat before congress and said we needed to get the UN out of the US and sell the property.
I want that Trump in the white house.
Me, too, Eric. I like Nikki but she is wasting her time and talent at the UN. She is making it sound relevant because she wants it to be.
Well, I think you have to look at the fact that what he said at the time was accurate.
"The fact that" plays the role of a cast, roughly the role played by a pointer to void in C.
Well, I think you have to look at (void*) what he said at the time was accurate.
The UN General Assembly is pretty much meaningless and to focus on its resolutions is a pointless waste of time. The real power is in the Security Council, and that is not going to be reformed anytime soon. The UN is a useful avenue for international diplomatic effort, but it is obviously very limited in the power it actually exerts in the real world. It'd be a nice if Trump has appointed an America First-oriented ambassador to the UN. One who recognizes that America's great power should be used in service of our protection and enrichment and not to play international busybody. Ambassador Haley is there to represent America's interests in the international system; why is she going on about Israel? If they have an issue with the General Assembly that's their problem.
"Hagar said...
The U.N. is a U.S. invention and well worth its cost.
But it needs to be taken sriously and worked like a political institution, bare knuckles style. It is not a magic sesame to a utopian better world as liberal Democrats tend to imagine it."
Which makes you marginally less insane than them.
The UN is something like a liberal article of faith.
This goes back to the Truman administration, if not to FDR's people.
It became even more sacred when the tide of new third-world non-aligned nations started making a splash in it. Fidel Castro's speech there in 1960 is probably a marker for the beginning of the third-worldist-leftist influence.
This mutated of course. The "third-world', "non-aligned" members became aligned, in universal bitter hostility vs "the West". The USSR became the effective leader of the UN by the 1970's. The Soviets exploited the Arab anti-Israel feelings to draw most if not all of them to its orbit, and added its own followers in the "third world" to create the anti-Israel bloc, which has outlasted its founder.
These days the UN has grown ever more irrelevant as most members have reformed their economies and become much more prosperous. Trade agreements were never really in the scope of the UN, and these have become far more important than whatever else the UN is still tasked with. Which is a good thing.
I can see Nikki Hailey as POTUS. Women have a duty to vote for women as Hillary has told us.
"The U.N. is a U.S. invention and well worth its cost."
Its a talking shop filled with useless delegations from irrelevant countries who spend all their time making PR statements. Which are rarely even reported. Nobody listens anymore.
I remember a time many years ago Trump sat before congress and said we needed to get the UN out of the US and sell the property.
When the UN is in session NYC it is one giant party for the lackeys of the member nations. They take over the best hotels and the best dining spots. All great except they have to smoke outside on the sidewalk...
I loved the idea of moving the UN to the middle of a cornfield in Nebraska.
What is insane is creating the U.N. and then leaving it to its own devices.
The U.S. is the biggest and meanest SOB in the valley. If it does not make the knuckleheads sit up and take notice, it has itself to blame.
I can see Nikki Hailey as POTUS. Women have a duty to vote for women as Hillary has told us.
Albright told us there was special place in Hell for women who don't support each other. She didn't mention if that place was on a floor above or below the one reserved for Hillary however...
I see Haley as the best opportunity we have for Ann's boring President.
"The U.S. is the biggest and meanest SOB in the valley."
No its not. It has indulged this playpen. That is because the PTB in the US hate the US (or most of its people) and like hearing its enemies slag it. The UN has been a weapon in the long-running US cold civil war.
The history of the UN and US attempts at reform is somewhat that the UN bureaucracy and a large number of the Genl Assy members are bullies--when the US stands up (think, Moynihan, and later, Bolton, and maybe now), they back off the worst of the silliness, the corruption, and the evil.
But they know that eventually the US govt will once again be taken over by the weak sisters and then they can go back to their bullying and evil and lining their own pockets.
I don't have an answer except the prayer that the electorate take foreign policy more seriously. But that ain't gonna happen, and it is not in most people's personal, short-term interest to spend the time and effort it would take to be informed on all that. So I guess the pendulum will just keep swinging.
Haley has been pretty impressive---if she keeps it up, she could be a credible candidate for President, tho foreign policy experience hasn't been a good launching pad in many years. She will have to leave the UN and get a more politically valuable position for a while (her time as SC Governor will be too long ago to be of much help, by, say 2024).
It is still the biggest and meanest. It just does not want to act like it. Or the liberals do not want it to since it conflicts with their vaporous "one world" dreams.
But the U.N. will never act like grown-ups unless it is made to.
The USA institutionalized the power sharing FDR created at Yalta to divide world hegemony with Uncle Joe. And Truman worked the system well until the CIA morphed into the Cold War executive branch complete with its Nazi Party mentors new tricks.
Trump will use the UN like he just used the Dems to blow up the log jam of the CIA's Control
of the Swamp. This will be like a Cirque de Soleil performance.
We may one day have some kind of world government, which horrifies me in a lot of ways. Some say it's inevitable, I'm not so sure. But at any rate, the UN is a good microcosm of why such a thing is inadvisable in the extreme. As an organization of different countries, different cultures, different religions, different value systems, all with wildly different priorities it highlights all the weaknesses of one-size-fits-all globalist thinking. Everything they do only seems to lead to confusion, exploitation of the foolish, and general corruption.
Two individuals with different sets of values and needs can often find ways to work things out and live peaceably. Small groups can too, but it gets more complex the larger the groups become.
More humans would have to get on the same page so to speak before anything like a world government could be achieved without such an endeavor devolving into an absolute cesspit of corruption and fraud and human exploitation. It'd come down to the lowest common denominator, the most corrupt third world hellhole.
Once Tillerson cleans house at the State Department, he should get out and Nikki Haley should take over as a major step to a presidential run. Tillerson appears to be an excellent organizational guy, but a bit soft on Trump's positions. Haley seemed to do a good job in SC and she is giving off positive vibes at the UN. The Republicans run a qualified minority woman for Pres? Where do I vote?
Can anyone explain to me why all the people who excoriate the US Senate as "undemocratic," because states of widely differing sizes each get the same vote, generally approve of the UN General Assembly, which is the same only more so?
Incidentally, I took part in a "model UN" in high school, when there was still a USSR, and I was perplexed that besides the USSR, there were separate seats for Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia as it then was). Does anyone know why? Both of them were captive states of the USSR every bit as much as Georgia or Kazakhstan, but they were separated out as the others weren't. Weird.
@Michelle Dulak Thomson, it was a deal cut by the Truman administration when they were negotiating the creation of the UN. Otherwise Uncle Joe Stalin would pick up his bag of marbles and go home.
"I was perplexed that besides the USSR, there were separate seats for Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia as it then was). Does anyone know why? "
Because Stalin negotiated extra seats at Yalta as part of the price for joining.
@Khesanh 0802:
Once Tillerson cleans house at the State Department, he should get out and Nikki Haley should take over as a major step to a presidential run. Tillerson appears to be an excellent organizational guy, but a bit soft on Trump's positions. Haley seemed to do a good job in SC and she is giving off positive vibes at the UN. The Republicans run a qualified minority woman for Pres? Where do I vote?
I think this is a fantastically bad idea. When news of Tillerson as SecState first broke, I was pleasantly surprised. He was not a particularly ideological guy, and I thought he could bring a pragmatic, tough-minded businessman approach to foreign affairs. Unfortunately, his brief tenure thus far has been pretty incompetent. For starters, his attention at trying to "reform" the State Department is an absolute fool's errand. It's a big bureaucracy, and no Secretary is going to have a long enough tenure to build the kind of institutional relationships necessary to undertake a long-term project. Rumsfeld made a similar blunder at the Pentagon. Worst of all, reports have suggested that this has been among Tillerson's top priorities. Second, Tillerson seemed far too confident in the ability of his private connections with a lot of players on the international stage to help him get things accomplished. For these reasons, I'm on board with the Tillerson-should-resign meme.
However, Haley would be an atrocious replacement choice. Her blatant lies told at her AEI speech on the Iran deal are enough to disqualify her. While Tillerson has often had to walk back many of Trump's more stringent rhetoric to reassure allies and partners, Haley is a source of abusrist claims all on her own. That's decidedly not the kind of influence Trump needs to be surrounding himself with on the foreign policy front. Un Ambassador is a good place for Niki Haley. She can continue to be Trump's id with limited consequence.
Yeah I it is too bad that Dana Bash didn't just stick to the video of Trump's campaign sloganeering about the UN and ask Ambassador Haley if Trump's campaign slogans were now part of US policy positions at the UN.
A fairly long post from Althouse, and all she can talk about is how Dana Bash's question was an overreach. Meanwhile overlooking the bizarre extremist pitches on all sides of an issue by Salesman Trump.
Haley is presidential material.
Haley for President would not only be our first non-criminal female candidate but also our first Asian candidate. In 2020, Graham should retire and Haley should run for that seat.
"I see Haley as the best opportunity we have for Ann's boring President.'
She has made a good career of surprising people who underestimate her.
@J Farmer Okay we have agreement on half of my proposal. Who would you suggest as S of S?
prodded by you I read Haley's recent speech to AEI. I saw very little in there that one could even begin to call lies. Was she inaccurate about Hezbollah or the IRGC? I doubt it. Was her analysis of the unratified Treaty with Iran untrue? From other reading I have done on that treaty she did an excellent job of analyzing its weaknesses, Obama's failures in the negotiation, and the effects of a failure to certify. Was her reference to UN reports on Iran's status inaccurate. You may have read those reports, I haven't so I don't know.
Would you please give me some references that support your claim that Haley lied at the AEI. Thanks.
Hez b'Allah (The Army of God) just got 830 million dollars to fund the continuing war against Israel. But that's just Israel's problem. No need for the United States to concern itself with Israel. After all, the money the United States took from Iran was Iran's money and we should give it back to Iran so they can build nukes and fund a war against their declared enemies.
If we can get a good smug fertilizer down around the roots of these arguments, we might see how Pat Buchanan really feels about Israel.
@JFarmer here's what Tom Cotton said of Haley's speech:
"Ambassador Haley is right to warn that simply holding Iran to the nuclear deal is not enough to eliminate the threat it poses. The deal doesn't stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability; it all but paves the way to it. Living with a nuclear-armed North Korean regime whose main interest is its own preservation is dangerous enough. Living with a nuclear-armed Iranian regime whose main interest is the export of Islamist revolution and terrorist chaos would be catastrophic. The United States should lead an effort among free nations to deal squarely with the malicious designs of the ayatollahs. And a good first step would be an honest and sober decision from the president in October when the next congressional certification of the deal comes due."
Here's some support from the HuffPost (of all people) to claims of Iranian violations of JCPOA. Here's NPR's none too robust defense of Iran's missile tests. Here's the Washington Times on the relationship of Iran and Hezbollah. These pieces seem pretty much to agree with Haley's comments.
gspencer wrote: But what we can do is leave the UN.
That violates a Machiavellian principle sometimes inaccurately attributed to the Sicilian Mafia, Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. In spite of the high-minded crap that inspired the League of Nations and its successor, international politics remains as Hobbesian as ever it was when the first Neolithic farming village decided to wreck a neighboring village and take their meager stuff. We refused to join the League of Nations on the harebrained theory that oceans were our protection. Then we got another general war almost exactly 21 years after the first. We haven't had a general war since. Maybe that's because of our nukes, and theirs, or it may be because of the UN (very doubtful), but until we know for certain why general war has been averted since 1945 we best not muck about with the formula.
Haley is smarter than Dana Bash--admittedly that is a very low bar to clear.
But she slipped the question/challenge or whatever Dana thought it was. Did a nice job there.
And I like the fact that she said that The Donald slaps all the right people, and also hugs the right people.
@Khesanh 0802:
Would you please give me some references that support your claim that Haley lied at the AEI. Thanks.
Haley Debuts Trump’s Case for Ending Iran Nuke Deal by Kelley Vlahos in The American Conservative
Haley’s Risible Revisionism on the Nuclear Deal by Daniel Larison in in The American Conservative
The Case Against the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is One Big Lie by Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy
Haley's Dishonest Speech About the Iran Nuclear Agreement by Paul Pillar in The National Interest
Nikki Haley’s Alternative Facts on Iran by Emma Ashford at the Cato Institute
Here is a copy of the speech annotated by Richard Nephew of Brookings and the Center on Global Energy Policy
Farmer,
The whole deal, and the rebuttals from the various sources you cite, all depend on trusting the Iranians. Thats it. There is no real US intelligence in Iran. There is no real US leverage inside the Iranian government, and Iran still holds the US to be their worst enemy. Their fangs continue to drip with venom.
As far as the current situation, the US threw away its genuine leverage at the time of the deal because it gave Iran an enormous pile of cash. This was a ridiculous error.
As for "peaceful" nuclear power in Iran, this is absurd and always was. Their big reactor was never set up for power generation, but for nuclear enrichment. If they wanted power gen reactors they could get them and source fuel from abroad, which is what nearly everyone actually running power reactors does, like SK and Taiwan. Its way less expense and trouble. They want freedom to run their reactor in order to enrich fuel, thats it. Why do that? There is only one end in view. The Iranians (and Russians) have been disingenuous about this from day one.
The deal was fantastical, ridiculous, terrible, idiotic.
@Quaestor:
We haven't had a general war since. Maybe that's because of our nukes, and theirs, or it may be because of the UN (very doubtful), but until we know for certain why general war has been averted since 1945 we best not muck about with the formula.
I generally agree with your position that we should remain in the UN while still being honest to the fact that it doesn't really have that much power. It's symbolism and avenue for diplomatic engagement is the only really useful thing about it. But I would take contention with your notion that there is even such a thing as a "general war." The major wars of the first half of the 20th century are notable most precisely because of their general uniqueness in human history. The total war ethos proved untenable with the advent of thermonuclear weapons. But as Niall Ferguson pointed out in his The War of the World, there was about as much violent human death in the second half of the 20th century as in the first half; it's just that this violence mostly took place within national boundaries as opposed to between them.
We should start a United Democracies (with trade preferences) and let the old one go where it will without us.
The G20 won't cut it.
@J farmer I had already read a couple of pieces from the poorly named American Conservative. I do not agree with their analysis, nor their position on the Iranian deal. To me they are arguing the same positions that got us in the mess in Nork. The loud opposition to the Iranian deal was because it was being sold as a halt to Iranian nuclear development when it was, so obviously, at best a pause.
Skimming the other pieces I am surprised that people at these organizations can be so naive as to trust the Iranians. Cato seems to be afraid of a debate over whether the JCPOA is actually in the best interests of the US. Brookings?!? You're kidding.
Overall I think those commenters you referenced are fooling themselves that we haven't created a similar situation to Nork in Iran. I do not trust the Iranians. The ballistic missile tests just reinforce that mistrust. I strongly believe that Obama was sold a bill of goods and was willing to buy it because he was being so heavily pressured by the Europeans whose love he wanted - and who looked about to leave the reservation on the sanctions, because of their own self-interest.
Good intentions got us to the Nork situation. I believe that Iran is no different and that they are going to do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of any agreement.
Haley did not lie. She laid out a case that your people do not agree with. I believe they are just as wrong as you believe Haley.
@buwaya:
The whole deal, and the rebuttals from the various sources you cite, all depend on trusting the Iranians. Thats it. There is no real US intelligence in Iran.
That would be true of any deal that was made with the Iranians. Even if the administration got the so called "better deal," which included Iran giving up all of its nuclear energy capacity, it could still cheat, and you could levy the same charge. And beside that, the deal does not require us simply trusting Iran. There is an intrusive inspections regime in place that has broad access to all components of Iran's nuclear energy cycle. With no deal, this would not be in place, and we'd have even less ability to gather information and verify compliance.
As far as the current situation, the US threw away its genuine leverage at the time of the deal because it gave Iran an enormous pile of cash. This was a ridiculous error.
That was no such error. That money was already owed to Iran from sales it made internationally and was frozen in foreign banks due to UN Security Council sanctions. Had the US abandoned the talks and no deal was reached, the sanctions regime would have collapsed soon thereafter, and the money would still have gone into Iranian accounts, with none of the restrictions that the JCPOA achieved. And as I have argued many times before, the money Iran received from the removal of some sanctions would not significantly alter its strategic position in the region.
Its way less expense and trouble. They want freedom to run their reactor in order to enrich fuel, thats it. Why do that? There is only one end in view. The Iranians (and Russians) have been disingenuous about this from day one.
There are multiples reasons to explain Iran's nuclear program. For one, there is a sense of national pride and prestige in being a nuclear power country. That a country that it sees as bent on its destruction opposes such a program is all the more nationalist fuel for wanting one. Second, there is the plain pragmatic necessity of latent capability. There is no consensus among the intelligence communities that Iran is actually working towards a bomb, and the most conclusive belief is that so far at the most they are looking for so called "breakout ability." The JCPOA greatly expands the timeline for such an event.
The deal was fantastical, ridiculous, terrible, idiotic.
For the reasons stated above, I humbly disagree.
It's too bad Bush wired the Twin Towers for explosives and not the U.N. building.
Fool.
I don't want to get into the weeds of J. Farmer's "Haley lied" narrative, except to remind us that a diplomat is defined as someone who goes abroad to lie for his/her country.
Haley for Senate 2020!
Haley for President 2024!
You say this -
"For one, there is a sense of national pride and prestige in being a nuclear power country."
And then you say this -
"and the most conclusive belief is that so far at the most they are looking for so called "breakout ability."
National pride is a truly inane justification for a desire that has been so incredibly costly. Of course they want "breakout ability". That's the whole point of the Bushehr plant, to put Iran in a position to begin making nuclear warheads quickly. Exactly as North Korea did at Yongbyon. And the "inspectors" can be removed in an instant, and the US will, of course, do nothing, because it has no leverage over Iran, and can get none anymore. The US has been proven to be too spiritually weak to enforce anything on anyone. That is what the Iranians can now know with confidence.
As for the money - it was equivalent to a year's worth of Iran's govenment budget, and besides which the removal of sanctions means they have even more and easier access to hard currencies. The sanctions cannot, ever, come back.
The US is proven by this agreement to be completely useless, inutil. This is a lesson the whole world understood. There is no recovery from this, without incredible loss of life.
@Khesanh 0802:
I believe they are just as wrong as you believe Haley.
That's all fine, but you really did not refute any of the actual arguments made. Saying things like "Cato seems to be afraid of a debate over whether the JCPOA is actually in the best interests of the US. Brookings?!? You're kidding," is really just an example of the ad hominem fallacy. Even if it were true, it would make no difference to whether or not the individual arguments are valid or not.
I included in my links an annotated copy of the speech that included individual criticisms of specific points. Tell me why those points are wrong, not that you don't like one of the think tanks the author worked for.
As for your comparison to the North Korean deal and Haley's patently false claim that "the deal he struck wasn’t supposed to be just about nuclear weapons," I will include this testimony between Ted Cruze and Paul Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Senator Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say at the outset that our thoughts and prayers are with Chairman McCain as he recovers from his surgery, and we look forward to his being back at the committee very soon. General, thank you for your service. I want to talk to you about several different topics but I want to start with the Iran certification.Yesterday, the administration certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal. I have very significant concerns with that certification. I want to ask you in your judgment do you believe Iran is in compliance with the deal?
General Selva: Based on the evidence that has been presented by the intelligence community, it appears that Iran is in compliance with the rules that were laid out in the JCPOA.
Senator Cruz: Are they testing ballistic missiles?
General Selva: They are testing ballistic missiles, but those were not covered under the agreement.
Senator Cruz: How serious do you assess the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons?
General Selva: I think without the controls of the JCPOA, Iran has the technical expertise to be able to continue down the path to development of nuclear weapons.
Senator Cruz: As you know, a similar deal was negotiated with North Korea in the Clinton administration, and it resulted in North Korea acquiring a substantial number of nuclear weapons. What do you believe makes this deal likely to result in any outcome different from what happened in North Korea?
General Selva: I think there are two substantial differences at the outset. That does not mean that will not be setbacks in the agreement. The first is the inspection regime that went into the agreement that allows for international inspectors to inspect all of the areas that the Iranians used in their development and storage of enriched uranium and potentially the development of nuclear weapons. The second is —
Senator Cruz: How much advance notice does Iran get 9 before those notifications?
General Selva: I do not have the details of how much advance notice they get, but we are reasonably confident that the inspectors are able to randomly inspect. And they have installed technical measures that allow for constant surveillance of those same sites.
The second is the provisions that allow for sanctions outside of the agreement to continue to be in place on those areas of the Iranian economy, as well as leadership that engage in activities that are not governed by the treaty — or by the agreement. It is not a treaty.
Senator Cruz: So last week we also discovered that Iran had sentenced an American citizen and a Princeton graduate student to 10 years in prison. Does it concern you that we are certifying they are in compliance with the deal in the wake of their imprisoning yet another American?
General Selva: It concerns me whenever an American citizen is imprisoned overseas, particularly in a regime that is not transparent with their judiciary system. But again, the specifics of the agreement are directed explicitly at the development of and storage of nuclear weapons.
"It's symbolism and avenue for diplomatic engagement is the only really useful thing about it"
Nobody listens to anything said in the UN anymore. Countries deal with each other directly and not in public. At most they speak in private, leader to leader, in ever more numerous international conferences.
Back in the day, by the late 1960's, the only important "symbolism and diplomatic engagement" going on at the UN was the use of the venue for the injection of pro-Soviet or anti-American propaganda into the Western press. This was when the western press actually covered goings on at the UN.
Useless Nobodies
@buwaya:
And the "inspectors" can be removed in an instant, and the US will, of course, do nothing, because it has no leverage over Iran, and can get none anymore.
How do you figure that? The leverage that brought Iran to the negotiating table was the sanctions and their economic consequences. If Iran were to clearly violate the terms of the JCPOA, the US could build support for sanctions once again. But thus far, the IAEA and the intelligence community and our allies seem be in agreement that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. If the US believes there has been a violation, they have thus far produced zero evidence. \
The sanctions cannot, ever, come back.
How can you possibly know this?
The US is proven by this agreement to be completely useless, inutil. This is a lesson the whole world understood. There is no recovery from this, without incredible loss of life.
I think this statement betrays a very warped of the international system and how power operates within it. Even if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon, it could not significantly challenge America's material and technological power. As usual, nuclear weapons are pretty much only useful as defensive weapons and insurance policies against being attacked by outside powers.
I'd like to ask Professor Althouse why she seems to have objected so strongly to Dana Bash's characterization as Trump's foreign policy as one of "America First."
I acknowledged above that on the discrete matter of Trump's address to the UN this week, Trump doesn't actually use the term "America First."
But "America First" is a prominent theme on the White House's website, right now:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-foreign-policy
"How do you figure that? The leverage that brought Iran to the negotiating table was the sanctions and their economic consequences."
Because the US is too scared/lacking in self confidence to do this, and few foreign powers will honor such sanctions. It was one thing, with failing powers, to hold the line on already established sanctions, but there is no strength for re-imposing them. Heck, I believe hundreds of US judges can be found to block a US administration that dares try.
"Even if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon, it could not significantly challenge America's material and technological power"
Yes it could. It could threaten the characters across the Gulf for whatever concessions it likes, as in for instance to let it have its way in Bahrain. If challenged, it can credibly threaten Israel. What will the US do? Back down I am sure.
"I think this statement betrays a very warped of the international system and how power operates within it."
We disagree about "the international system", and power. History says wild men and bluffers can get away with a great deal indeed, and, of course, the moral is to the material as ten is to one. Or more.
@buwaya:
Because the US is too scared/lacking in self confidence to do this, and few foreign powers will honor such sanctions.
Even if this were true of "the US" in some kind of general sense that I don't even see how you could quantify, the Trump administration would still be free to pursue whatever sanctions they wish. And of course, it is not even really correct to say that sanctions were the only motivating factor. Rouhani's election was a big piece of the puzzle, and Rouhani haas a long history of advocating a more conciliatory relation with the US.
If challenged, it can credibly threaten Israel. What will the US do? Back down I am sure.
Iran has US has military forces on its eastern and western borders. The US has cyberattacked Iran and participated in the assassination of Iranians in Iran. We are NATO allies with Turkey, and we have been bombing five countries around Iran for over a decade. But if Iran threatens Israel with nuclear attack, it would expect the US to "back down?" Why?
J. Farmer wrote: It's symbolism and avenue for diplomatic engagement is the only really useful thing about it. But I would take contention with your notion that there is even such a thing as a "general war."
If you're ignorant of the classifications of armed conflict used by professional historians, it not my fault. Perhaps you should read more nonfiction.
"Iran has US has military forces on its eastern and western borders. The US has cyberattacked Iran and participated in the assassination of Iranians in Iran. We are NATO allies with Turkey, and we have been bombing five countries around Iran for over a decade. But if Iran threatens Israel with nuclear attack, it would expect the US to "back down?" Why?"
Because like Saudi and Pakistan, Iran is a huge conventional and unconventional military problem, orders of magnitude worse than the bits and subsets of Iraq and Afghanistan that were such trouble. Pinpricks and counterinsurgency are one thing, all out regime-changing war is something else. The US will have to mobilize all its military, and call up the National Guard and the Reserves to deal with Iran in a conventional manner. It would be tremendously expensive and enormously unpopular.
"Even if this were true of "the US" in some kind of general sense that I don't even see how you could quantify, the Trump administration would still be free to pursue whatever sanctions they wish."
The Trump administration has been successfully contained by the PTB in Washington and New York, and will never be permitted an aggressive response. You can see the institutional thinking in all the pieces you cited. Imagine these people having to deal with a situation they are denying will happen. They will just continue to deny.
@Quaestor:
If you're ignorant of the classifications of armed conflict used by professional historians, it not my fault. Perhaps you should read more nonfiction.
It's topic I have long been interested in and have read a great deal about. But I am not familiar with the term "general war." After searching, the only reference I could find for it was a citation to the US Department of Defense's 2005 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. I just viewed what appears to be the latest version here, and it does not seem to contain the phrase.
Can you perhaps give me an example of it being used as a "classification of armed conflict...by professional historians?"
@ J. farmer re Buwaya The Europeans will never agree to restoring the sanctions regime on Iran. They were ready to break them without our help. Too much money involved. I have to go with Buwaya on this. I don't trust the Iranians it's that simple. They have given me no reason to trust them and a lot of reasons to distrust them. General Selva is spouting the party line of those who appointed him.
I don't think there was or is any way to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons short of a massive invasion that isn't going to happen.
And I can't say I blame them. Both Iraq and Libya had nuclear programs and abandoned them, and years later the governments were toppled with impunity. Ukraine gave up its nukes when the USSR collapsed, foolishly relying on western countries to contain future Russian aggression, and lost both Crimea, which really isn't part of Ukraine, but also eastern areas that definitely are.
If I were running Iran, or North Korea, or Burma, or any of a dozen other countries with iffy security situations I'd want nukes too, and no amount of diplomacy or sanctions would prevent me from acquiring them.
@buwaya:
The US will have to mobilize all its military, and call up the National Guard and the Reserves to deal with Iran in a conventional manner. It would be tremendously expensive and enormously unpopular.
I am talking about deterring a nuclear strike, not a conventional military attack. Conventional military attack by Iran has already been deterred for years.
You can see the institutional thinking in all the pieces you cited.
The thinking that advocates a more aggressive approach is similarly "institutional" in its thinking. Nikki Haley, the UN Ambassador, was giving a speech to AEI, an interventionist think tank that has been advocating against the nuclear deal for years. If the administration succeeds in blowing it up, what will replace it and how we will get there?
To put it plainly,
Iran is run by a substantially suicidal sect, at least in its radical paramilitary arm, which has the actual power. They can kill whomever they want and the regular Iranian leadership lives in fear of them.
If Iran chooses to bluff with nuclear weapons, the world has to assume they aren't bluffing, because the people who matter are indeed suicidal. Plenty of senior IRGC officers have deliberately sought martyrdom in recent years in Iraq and Syria. At one point they lost three generals in two weeks.
Khesanh 0802:
I don't trust the Iranians it's that simple. They have given me no reason to trust them and a lot of reasons to distrust them. General Selva is spouting the party line of those who appointed him.
You are right, that is simple. And barely rises to the level of an argument. If you want to make a claim about the Iranian nuclear program, you need evidence. If the Trump administration (which has every incentive to claim a violation) has any evidence that Iran is cheating, it's yet to produced.
General Selva is spouting the party line of those who appointed him.
Again that is not responsive to what Selva said; you are just impugning his motives even though you have no idea about him. The argument that the nuclear deal was only concerned with Iran's nuclear program was frequently cited throughout the negotiations. His comparisons with the NorK deal are similarly correct. If you disagree, tell me what he got wrong.
"AEI, an interventionist think tank "
Which has been out of power since early in the second Bush administration.
This is not conventional Washington thinking.
@J farmer I read enough of the annotated speech to see that the commenter agreed with Haley more than he disagreed and that on many issues he was splitting hairs and depending on trust in the Iranians. His arguments are basically no different from those at the American Conservative. I find them weak and since I do not trust the Iranians I would prefer a much stronger position toward them. I'll bet you a buck that, if we are both still alive, we will see Iran with nuclear missiles before the JCPOA has expired. How's that for putting my money where my mouth is?
I like the part of the thread in which Smug, Inc. actually uses the word humbly. That was my favorite.
"I am talking about deterring a nuclear strike, not a conventional military attack."
To do that they would have to credibly threaten, possibly with nuclear weapons, retaliation against something the Iranians don't want to lose. And besides that risk retaliation round II.
What would that be, that the IRGC values so much?
They are after all utterly fanatical, to the point of actively seeking martyrdom, pining for it.
And why would they then refrain from shooting off nuclear missile #2?
I have been around enough to know that the Joint Chiefs are first and foremost politicians. If you have read McMaster's "Dereliction of Duty" then you know that the Joint Chiefs were a miserable failure regarding our entanglement in VN. Given those who selected the current Joint Chiefs I have no more faith in their truth telling than those of the Johnson era.
Khesahn 0802 is far too generous with his trust.
@ J. Farmer Are you familiar with this : http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html
And : http://www.newsweek.com/why-obama-ignoring-iran-cheating-nuke-deal-479689 German intelligence says they have been cheating.
And I suspect Stephen Walt would be happy to see a nuclear Iran threatening israel.
@J Farmer It is not my job to refute any of those people you referred to. I read what they had to say, I thought their arguments weak or off target and I said so. That I have no respect for Brookings as a source has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks. it is based on years of observation. What you essentially did was attack me personally because I did not spend a half hour refuting any of those people in detail. I have a right to my opinions, they have a right to theirs. I can disagree with them, they can disagree with me.
I made it very clear from my opening remarks that I believe it is impossible to trust the Iranians. Period.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Generals killed in Syria and Iraq - Generals, note.
There have been hundreds of other officers killed, besides these.
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3o7lvp/iranian_irgc_generals_killed_in_syria_and_iraq/
This lists eight, as of Oct 2015.
There have been several others since, the last one I can find was killed near Mosul this May. The count may now be up to a dozen or fifteen.
Thats from a very small numerical commitment of forces ( a few thousand at any time) to aid the various pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq.
I believe that there has only been one US General officer killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, out of a deployed force that has numbered up to 150,000 at times.
@Khesanh 0802:
I made it very clear from my opening remarks that I believe it is impossible to trust the Iranians. Period.
Then, in fact, there is no deal you could accept. If your goal then is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and you oppose an arrangement supported by close allies like UK, France, and Germany, then how do you achieved your stated goal? As for Haley's AEI speech, her claims that "The deal he struck wasn’t supposed to be just about nuclear weapons," or "We were promised an “end” to the Iranian nuclear program," are both patently false.
As I said, the Trump administration has every incentive to claim that the Iranians are cheating and yet they have not been able to point to any evidence for such cheating. Hence, Haley is forced into revisionism and making false statements about what the Iranian deal supposedly meant as opposed to what the people who were advocating it at the time said it meant.
buwaya:
Thats from a very small numerical commitment of forces ( a few thousand at any time) to aid the various pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq.
I am not sure what point you're trying to make by this reference. Supporting Assad is a smart policy. The Iranians are attacking radical salafi jihadi groups in Iran and Syria. That's a good thing. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are close partners in the region, have been funding, training, and supplying those forces? How is that good for US national security?
"I am not sure what point you're trying to make by this reference. "
That they are eager to die, even their very senior personnel. And still they go. Some of these are very senior indeed, one of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Hamadani) was in charge of the internal security crackdown on the 2009 revolt and was deputy commander of the IRGC. This is good information as to the character of the people you are dealing with.
J. Farmer wrote: Can you perhaps give me an example of it being used as a "classification of armed conflict...by professional historians?"
I'll start at the beginning. You may consider this a free lecture. The term first appears in German as Eignetlichekrieg in Clausewitz's study Vom Kriege. Literally, this is rendered "actual war" or "true war", but by the examples, Clausewitz cited it is clear that he meant something else. His examples began with the Peloponnesian War (called "a war like no other" by Thucydides) and culminated in that 23-year conflict commonly but inaccurately known as the Napoleonic Wars. A general war is that state of affairs when systems of international alliance seek to impose their political will on one another by non-political means. Since France had no real allies perhaps the term hegemonic war is better than general war for the 1792-1815 period. The War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War definitely fit the model, however. From 1939 on the term has been synonymous with what most people call "world war", However, since in neither case did the entire galaxy of nation-states consist of belligerent powers, the term "world war" is inaccurate for the purposes of analytic study. In the case of the Great War (WWI did not enter general usage until the second war was underway) most of Asia saw no fighting other than opportunistic land grabbing by Japan, and the United States was neutral until April 1917, not to mention the many neutral powers of Europe which remained so throughout the conflict. Clausewitz used general war to classify conflicts that were not primarily civil wars in nature, such as Caesar's war against the Optimates, and the struggle between Charles I and Parliament, (The American Civil War is a special case in that status of United States as a federation of sovereignties with some of those sovereign powers seeking to remain both neutral and within the federal union was unique at the time.) or international wars that do not involve international alliances. Clausewitz cited examples from Renaissance Germany where one princely or electoral state made war on another over some territorial dispute or "free city", such as the war of Saxony and Brandenburg over Dresden. Better examples could be the Mexican War and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
If you want to consult a professional I suggest "Theories of General War" by Jack S. Levy, World Politics, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Apr., 1985), pp. 344-374
@buwaya:
That they are eager to die, even their very senior personnel. And still they go. Some of these are very senior indeed, one of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Hamadani) was in charge of the internal security crackdown on the 2009 revolt and was deputy commander of the IRGC. This is good information as to the character of the people you are dealing with.
Who are "they?" And I don't think you can draw such far-flung conclusions from such a limited anecdote. If anything, it reflects the relative weakness of Iran's armed forces. They are willing to invest a great amount of resources to save one of the few regional partners they have. Iran remains a country that has very limited ability to project any conventional military force outside of its borders.
@Quaestor:
If you want to consult a professional I suggest "Theories of General War" by Jack S. Levy, World Politics, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Apr., 1985), pp. 344-374
I have not encountered the use of the phrase "general war" and had no way to know you were using it in that context. You were not making the point I thought you were making, though I would like to point out that I was largely agreeing with you in my initial comment. With the exception of the Iran-Iraq War, there have not been major inter-state warfare in the second half of the 20th century, though I pointed out that an almost equal amount of political violence occurred intra-state instead. I agreed with your point that nuclear weaponry was likely a major calculus. As for Mr. Levy's Theories of General War, I am not familiar with this work, but I would like to quote his first footnote: "The concept of general war has also been referred to as 'global war,' 'world war,' 'extensive war,' 'systemic war,' and 'hyper war.' In spite of some differences, these concepts refer to the same basic phenomenon and will be used interchangeably here. My own preference is for the term 'general war' because it carries the least amount of conceptual baggage and best serves as the lowest common denominator." For what it's worth, "general war" is not one of the listed topics and a search of JSTOR does not
Smug has a hard time typing I am wrong.
Perhaps a cut and paste will be easier.
Can smug cut and paste?
@Birkel:
Smug has a hard time typing I am wrong.
When it happens, I'll be more than happy to, sweetheart. Hug and kisses.
Well, bravo to the debaters who actually succeeded in debating. I learned a lot. Still it's obvious to me that Iran is after the bomb and NORK shows how they will act when they get it. One point not mentioned is the small size of the MidEast. Everybody plus the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian seas - it's all downwind of the fallout. It's not like you could be sure you would get Tel-Aviv but not the Palestinians and Egyptians, for example
My point is about the personal and institutional moral condition of the IRGC. They are not just willing but eager to die. Your usual general officer in most militaries is a uniformed bureaucrat waiting for a comfortable retirement. In the IRGC these days the desirable retirement job seems to be "martyr". That is NOT typical of armies that are not fighting total wars. This rate of dead generals is what you may have seen on the Russian front 1941-45, maybe, but even then for much larger forces.
This is important, as these IRGC people will be the ones with their fingers on the nuclear button. They really do believe in this shahid business, almost as much it seems as Al Qaeda and ISIS.
And fifteen dead generals in such a very small personnel commitment? Thats not an anecdote. Thats compared to ONE US general in fifteen years. One general is a fluke, two are bad luck, three ... well, fifteen is simply that they are TRYING to get killed.
The nuke button in the hands of people like this?
Chuck,
I'd suggest you leave this blog before you become the next Charles Johnson.
@buwaya:
They are not just willing but eager to die...In the IRGC these days the desirable retirement job seems to be "martyr"
You have zero evidence for either of these claims. The one example you gave, Hossein Hamedani, was killed by an ISIS attack in Aleppo. You have some evidence that he went there expecting or wanting to die? If so, please share it. Again, you're making huge leaps on big questions with little evidence. The Iranian regime's history for the last 40 years or so has been one of self-preservation, not an eagerness for martyrdom and self-destruction. The Iran-Iraq War and Iran's subsequent do not suggest a suicidal regime. Just the opposite, in fact.
Smug: "I would take contention with your notion that there is even such a thing as a "general war.""
Smug:"I have not encountered the use of the phrase "general war" and had no way to know you were using it in that context."
Smug was wrong. Smug has a hard time typing the words. Smug thinks hugs and kisses from a man is cute or threatening. Wrong again.
In re IRGC generals, am reminded of a man I have been fascinated by for decades. Jose Millan Astray. Military intellectual, a teenage hero (in the Philippines!), a great organizer, public celebrity and an inspirational commander, an "engineer of mens souls" as one journalist put it.
Also a man with a death wish. He made a point of getting shot at on every occasion possible, even as a Colonel commanding a regiment. And the bullets found their marks, he was shot at least six times, losing various body parts. His survival was an ongoing miracle. He was also, probably not coincidentally, utterly ruthless. He expected his men to be similarly eager for death, giving them the motto "viva la muerte" and offering them every opportunity to live up to it. That is, he expected them to be Spanish Catholic shahids.
Its not a comfortable thought, that of the likes of Millan Astray controlling nuclear weapons.
My point keeps getting missed it seems.
I gave a rather remarkable statistic, not of one dead Iranian general, but of fifteen or so by my last count, and that in an advisory role in a rather low-intensity war with small forces engaged.
This is a very unusual trend, most untypical of generals.
It is less surprising if one knows a bit of the internal culture of the IRGC.
I think it is remarkably telling evidence of the fanaticism of that institution, which will control Irans nukes, not its supposed government.
it's all downwind of the fallout
If the bomb is detonated at a high enough altitude, there will be little or no fallout, but it won't destroy hardened targets.
In a previous life, I was a nuclear weapons effects workerbee. As far as WW III fallout, the safest place in the US regardless of wind patterns is northern Maine.
I don't think the mullahs in Iran are suicidal. I am sure they don't mind if some of their underlings are. But what concerns me more is that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror. A world in which Iran controls nuclear weapons? Not a good situation.
The problem with Iran, or one of them, is that I don't think the IRGC are "underlings" in fact.
That institution seems semi-independent of and carefully indulged by the mullahs.
@buwaya:
My point keeps getting missed it seems.
No, I get your point; what I am disagreeing with is the conclusions you think you can draw from that point.
I gave a rather remarkable statistic, not of one dead Iranian general, but of fifteen or so by my last count, and that in an advisory role in a rather low-intensity war with small forces engaged.
That could just as easily be a sign of incompetence or excess risk-taking, not martyrdom and a wish to die. And it presumes that what is called a general in the IRGC is the same as what some other country calls a general, which I don't think is established. Since you began this point by linking to reddit, I will also link to a post that provides an alternative explanation.
@Mr. Majestyk:
But what concerns me more is that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror. A world in which Iran controls nuclear weapons? Not a good situation.
That is a very misleading statement and has more to do with State Department terminology than how events have occurred in the real world. For starters, the majority of Islamic-related terrorist activity is carried out by Sunni jihadists who consider Iran an enemy. The two organizations most supported by the Iranians are Hezbollah and Hamas, and both are very limited geographically in their scope and are mostly concerned with challenging Israel in the occupied territories. They have nowhere near the same expansionist, highly ideological agenda as ISIS. The terror events we have seen carried out in the US and in Europe claim inspiration from ISIS, not Hezbollah or Hamas.
Hez b'Allah
The Army of God
As if they are ordered from on high. Fanatics in a religious war.
If we want to start criticizing misleading terminology, quit pretending the self-appointed name of Hez b'Allah does not indicate a religious fanaticism you deny elsewhere in this thread.
Smug gets people into trouble.
@buwaya:
The problem with Iran, or one of them, is that I don't think the IRGC are "underlings" in fact.
That institution seems semi-independent of and carefully indulged by the mullahs.
I certainly agree with this. These kinds of "revolutionary" forces have a way of quickly becoming essentially mafioso in their functioning. But I think it is important that much of the IRGC is run-of-the-mill corruption and is not motivated primarily by ideological fervor. The IRGC is often a stepping stone to better jobs within the government or to a political career. The IRGC certainly influences policy through parties such as the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, which was widely recognized as a non-clerical conservative party for IRGC members. But even they were not a unified voice, and just as the IRGC does not operate with a single purpose, it must also balance other power centers in Iran.
"But what concerns me more is that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror. A world in which Iran controls nuclear weapons? Not a good situation."
This is just a rote and lazy repetition of State Department propaganda. America is responsible for more terror in the world than Iran, by far.
This is just a rote and lazy repetition of State Department propaganda. America is responsible for more terror in the world than Iran, by far.
This is fucking ridiculous.
Pull your head out of your ass comrade.
The 4chan link seems to agree with my point (I have seen much the same elsewhere) - that in the IRGC there is a culture of martyrdom and sacrifice where even Generals court death.
I don't see an "alternate" view there at all.
And a culture of "excess risk taking" is just what I am talking about. This is the culture that will control nuclear weapons.
@buwaya:
I don't see an "alternate" view there at all.
It also discusses the difference in structure of the armed forces, which makes comparisons to what Iranians call "generals" and what western or western-created militaries call "generals." For what it's worth, neither the name you mentioned nor any of the others given at the link were people occupying major centers of power in Iran that I knew of. If you have information to suggest otherwise, I will consider it.
Again, what I am arguing against is your assertion that this is evidence that the Iranian regime is suicidal. I don't think the example you offer amounts to much as evidence, and it is still contradicted by the regime's behavior for the last 40 years. During this time, the regime has not proven itself to be quick to destroy itself in rash fevers of martyrdom. It's behavior, in fact, has not been largely driven by ideological concerns but pragmatic power arrangements. Ideological revolutionary regimes have a way of settling into the practical challenges of reality. As with the North Korean example, if we accept your assertion that Iran cannot be deterred, then one has to ask what has deterred them thus far. Why would they not just launch a conventional military assault against their neighbors if they were death-hungry martyrs?
Regimes that fund armies that believe they are inspired by God are always rational actors.
See, e.g. all of human history
What has deterred Iran thus far is economic weakness, imposed by, alternately, Iraq, the US through sanctions, and their own deficiencies. But nuclear weapons gives them the possibility, at least, of levying tribute on their rich neighbors.
And what you are reading in 4Chan is not about a proliferation of ranks (everyones a general! - no) but about an attitude towards rank. The general is to be a warrior like any other, not that every warrior is a general. Its like the expectation of Alexanders companions in the ranks, that he would be among them in the ranks.
@buwaya:
What has deterred Iran thus far is economic weakness, imposed by, alternately, Iraq, the US through sanctions, and their own deficiencies. But nuclear weapons gives them the possibility, at least, of levying tribute on their rich neighbors.
How?
Fear-mongering about "irrational" and "suicidal" regimes who will use their non-existent (in the case of Iran) or bare handful (in the case of North Korea) to destroy the world or, at the least, to "levy tribute on their rich neighbors", is delusional or mendacious, depending on who is the source of it. When it issues from our government, it is propaganda, an array of knowing lies intended to subdue public objections and compel compliance to or active support for any actions (and concomitant expenditures of tax monies) our government might take against those nations it sees as competitors to our power or impediments to our goals of controlling the world. If it issues from individuals, such as Buwaya above, it is delusional, the result of credulous belief in the government's lies.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा