[August 1, 2008]
Senator McCain, President Bush, and some of their oil industry friends are urging Americans to support overturning a 26-year ban on offshore drilling as a way to bring down gas prices. Of course, it’s snake oil designed for what the Joe Lieberman campaign affectionately called “low information voters.”

As Dean Baker and Nichole Szembrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in a June 2008 paper ,

the Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects that Senator McCain’s proposal would have no impact in the near-term since it will be close to a decade before the first oil can be extracted from the currently protected offshore areas. The EIA projects that production will reach 200,000 barrels a day (0.2 percent of projected world production) at peak production in close to twenty years. It describes this amount as too small to have any significant effect on oil prices.

In contrast, if the United States had continued raising auto fuel efficiency standards annually between 1985-2005 by a quarter of the amount it raised them annually from 1980-1985 — instead of leaving them virtually unchanged — the result would have roughly been the equivalent of 3.3 million barrels of oil per day in new production in 2008 — 16 times the impact of McCain’s Offshore Drilling [MOD], CEPR reports.

What about the impact of lifting sanctions on Iran?

“Sanctions are pushing up the cost of oil,” notes Juan Cole in a recent piece on Salon.
I asked Cole what his estimate of the scale of this effect was. If Iran could have expanded production of oil from 4 million barrels a day in the late 1990s to 6 million barrels a day today, that would be an extra 2 million barrels a day, i.e. 88 million barrels a day globally instead of 86, Cole says.

I asked Dean Baker of CEPR what could be the impact of lifting sanctions on Iran, and he wrote:

“Suppose they open up to foreign investment and production goes up 1-2 million barrels a day after a few years…It’s 5 to 10 times McCain’s offshore drilling.”

So, summarizing in a table, using MOD [”McCain’s Offshore Drilling”] as our “numeraire,” as the economists say, we have the following:

Modest Conservation: 16 MOD
Lift Sanctions on Iran: 5-10 MOD
McCain’s Offshore Drilling: 1 MOD

Now, some would surely argue that simply lifting sanctions on Iran is not politically feasible, because there is currently a “Washington Consensus” for sanctions on Iran supported by groups like AIPAC, linked to its nuclear program, relations with Iraq, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.

Let’s concede for the sake of discussion that that is true. What about the lifting of sanctions in the context of a real, negotiated deal with Iran? Would such a deal be more likely if Americans realized that the likely effect of such a deal would include an increase in world oil production roughly equivalent to 5-10 MODs?

Consider the following.

First, insofar as the sanctions were aimed at stopping Iran from having a nuclear program, or having relations with Iraq, Hamas, or Hizbollah that the US doesn’t like, they have obviously not achieved their goals. If sanctions are expanded, (for example, by trying to ban Iran’s gas imports, through what effectively amounts to an international blockade, as AIPAC has proposed) then they will drive up the price of oil still further, and it seems unlikely that the U.S. will be able to get Russia and China and Germany to agree to expand the sanctions to the degree necessary to achieve any of those goals.

Second, a key reason that the U.S. can’t win support for the effective expansion of sanctions is that current U.S. policies are based on goals that are not widely seen internationally as legitimate. It’s one thing to say you don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. For that goal there is widespread international support (including — according to their repeated public statements — all the leaders of Iran, and the majority of Iranian public opinion.) But the current U.S. goal is to prevent Iran from having any nuclear program at all that involves the enrichment of uranium, and that goal has weak international support.

Suppose the U.S. changed its goals with respect to Iran to make them more realistic. Suppose, for example, that instead of trying to ban enrichment of uranium in Iran entirely — a nonstarter for the overwhelming majority of Iranian public opinion — the US were to seek to put Iran’s uranium enrichment program under full international control, as Ambassador Pickering has proposed.

Suppose that instead of the unrealistic goals of demanding that Iran not “support” allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, the US sought Iran’s agreement to support its allies only politically and financially, and for Iran to use its influence with its allies to diminish violence and promote national reconciliation in these countries, as Iran has offered to do in the past and indeed has already done in Iraq and Lebanon. Suppose that, as seems quite plausible, as a result of this shift in U.S. policy the U.S. was able to get a deal with Iran, and lift the sanctions.

Should not the fact that such a policy could bring the benefit of 5-10 MODs be part of our debate over policy towards Iran? Would Americans tolerate that AIPAC dictate US policy towards Iran if they realized that it was costing them every time they went to the pump?

Here’s a first step: don’t let AIPAC drive up gas prices even more. Ask Congress to reject AIPAC’s resolution seeking to ban Iran’s gas imports.

Ambassador Pickering calls for talks with Iran without preconditions and advocates for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran.

Is Israel really preparing to attack Iran? The New York Times today describes a June Israeli military exercise U.S. officials say “appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” A “senior Pentagon official” said a goal of the exercise “was to send a clear message to the United States” and Europe that Israel was prepared to act militarily if U.S. pressure to stop Iran from enriching uranium continued to fail.

If so, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner didn’t get the message. “The signal I received is that Israel does NOT have the capability to effectively attack Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Col. Gardiner says.

Gardiner says a 2006 MIT paper by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, “Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities,” is a good representation of how Israeli military planners think about targeting.

According to Raas and Long, in a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities Israel would be interested in three targets - the enrichment facility at Natanz, the conversion facility at Esfahan and the heavy water plant at Arak. They say Israel would want to attack these three facilities with a combined total of 36 aircraft.

“Getting 36 bombing aircraft into the targets connects well with the New York Times description of the early June exercise of 100 aircraft,” Gardiner says. “Three strike packages of F-15I and F-16I aircraft, escorted by F-15A/C’s with other supporting aircraft would be around 100 aircraft.”

“An Israeli strike would not be much of a strike,” Gardiner says. Israel would hit approximately 100 aim points, single weapons on a single part of the target. “I would call the Israeli strike ‘disruptive’ rather than ‘destructive,’” he says. It has taken three to five years to build the three facilities. “You would have to destroy most of the facilities to come close to setting back the program three to five years.”

The US probably thinks in terms of about 10 times more aim points for a similar strike, Gardiner notes.

“President Bush likes beehive analogies,” Gardiner points out. ” An Israel-only strike would stir up the bees and leave the hives with only limited damage.”

If Gardiner’s analysis is correct, then Michael Gordon’s New York Times article is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so. It’s part of a campaign of pressure on Congress and European governments - likely orchestrated with the Cheney faction of the Bush Administration - to forego real negotiations with Iran, and to push towards U.S. military escalation. If we don’t act, the Israelis will, the argument will be - neglecting the fact that no Israeli action is possible without a green light from Washington.

Next week, Congress may consider on its suspension calendar a resolution promoted by AIPAC that effectively endorses a naval blockade against Iran - an act of war. If you don’t think such a resolution should be rushed through Congress, you can say so here.

by Robert Naiman

When Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice-President Cheney, and then against President Bush, one of his key accusations was that the Bush Administration has tried to lead the United States into war with Iran.

So you might have thought that Members of Congress who signed on to the impeachment crusade shared Rep. Kucinich’s critique of U.S. saber-rattling towards Iran.

If you thought that, you might want to think again. The evidence is, shall we say, mixed.

Representative Robert Wexler, who has made support of impeachment a signature issue, has signed on to a House resolution promoted by AIPAC that appears to endorse a naval blockade of Iran. A naval blockade would, of course, be an act of war. If not sanctioned by the UN Security Council - and there is no reason to believe that it would be - it would be a war crime. The resolution makes no mention of seeking Security Council approval.

Consider what House Concurrent Resolution 362 “demands”:

that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program;

And consider how the United States and its allies could prohibit “the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products” or “impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” without imposing a naval blockade, an act of war.

If you think that’s a far-fetched interpretation, consider what the New York Times reported Sunday as the possible consequence if Iran refused the “generous offer” to comply with U.S. demands that it stop enriching uranium:

“other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a ‘coalition of the willing’ outside the United Nations”

“Outside the United Nations” meaning, presumably, without UN Security Council authorization. And what might those “punitive moves” be?

“Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran’s oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran’s oil production.”

I’m a firm believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I would not be surprised if Rep. Wexler signed on to this “get tough” resolution without thinking through its implications.

If so, all Rep. Wexler has to do to set things straight is remove his name from the resolution.

You can check whether he has done so here.

A House leadership office said that the resolution could be put on the suspension calendar next week.

If you think that would be bad, you can write Congress in opposition to this resolution here.

by Robert Naiman

Who says America doesn’t have a free press?

Everything you know about the world will be reported by the New York Times - eventually.

You just have to be very patient - and read very carefully.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that President Bush “accused” Iran of rejecting a new set of incentives to stop enriching uranium. “I am disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand,” Bush said.

Of course, Iran didn’t reject it “out of hand,” as the article goes on to explain:

Tehran did not formally reject the offer…Mr. Mottaki [Iran’s Foreign Minister] said that Iran’s response would depend on how the West responded to Iran’s May 13 proposal calling for international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Nor was it true that President Bush was disappointed:

The French and Americans presumed in advance that their new proposal of incentives … would be brushed aside by Tehran, officials and diplomats said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

[Presumably, “sensitivity of the issue” means “because they are not supposed to be quoted on the record saying that the ‘diplomatic’ initiative is a charade.”]

So, in the space of thirteen words, President Bush managed to lie (at least) twice.

Was it a “generous offer”? That of course is a matter of perspective. Iran is being offered a package of economic incentives to give up what Iranians - not just the government, but Iranians generally - regard as a fundamental right - mastery of the technology to enrich uranium. As Iran’s UN Ambassador told the Boston Globe on May 31, “This has become an issue of national pride.” As the NYT notes, the same deal was offered in the past, and Iran rejected it.

Regardless of whether anyone in Washington agrees that Iran has the right to enrich uranium, it is an objective fact that Iranians generally, not just the government, believe that Iran has the right to enrich uranium.

In April, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland published a poll of Iranian public opinion. PIPA found that 81% of Iranians consider it “very important” for “Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program” which would give Iran the capacity to produce nuclear fuel for energy production. Four out of five. Only 5% think Iran should not pursue a full-fuel-cycle program.

So, the United States and its allies made a proposal for to Iran to give up something that four out of five Iranians consider to be “very important.” The United States and its allies expected Iran to reject the “offer,” as it has in the past.

Why the charade? The NYT explains:

But Mr. Bush and the Europeans who formally made the offer want to show that all efforts at dialogue are being taken.

So, “all efforts at dialogue” means restating a proposal that the government of Iran has already rejected - and which Iran is expected, by those making the proposal, to reject again - to give up something that four in five Iranians say is “very important.”

Who is the audience for this “show”? People who don’t read the New York Times, apparently. These people will be told that “all efforts at dialogue” have been exhausted and there is no alternative to “other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a ‘coalition of the willing’ outside the United Nations”:

“Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran’s oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran’s oil production.”

For those scoring at home, a naval embargo would be an act of war. If undertaken “outside the United Nations” - i.e. without the authorization of the UN Security Council - it would be a war crime. If you don’t think Iran would retaliate for this act of war, or that it doesn’t have effective means of doing so, then you are, as John McCain might say, “naïve and inexperienced.”

Once again a false choice is placed before the world - the fake diplomacy of the Bush Administration or war. Are there no other alternatives?

The same PIPA poll found that 58% of Iranians support the idea of making a deal with the UN Security Council that would allow Iran to have a full-cycle nuclear program while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency “permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production” and not producing nuclear weapons. PIPA notes that in a March 2008 poll for the BBC World Service 55% of Americans approved of such a deal.

Indeed, in its May 13 proposal - which the NYT dismisses in a phrase by noting that it “does not mention the key Western demand - that Iran stop enriching uranium,” Iran proposed “international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Furthermore, as the Boston Globe reported May 31, Iran’s UN Ambassador said Iran “would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation.”

As the Boston Globe noted on June 10, “Thomas Pickering, the US ambassador to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed the idea of such a consortium in a March article in the New York Review of Books.” And the plan is “getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists”:

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the plan should be explored.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan “a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution.”

And Joseph Cirincione, a “nonproliferation specialist who serves informally as an adviser to Obama’s campaign,” says the idea is “worth exploring.”

So there is an alternative. But you wouldn’t know it from the “show.”

If you think Congress should be pressing for real diplomacy with Iran, you can ask them to do so here.

by Robert Naiman

Where are America’s “million Trotskyites” when you need them?

When Iran’ UN Ambassador told the Boston Globe that Iran would “consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation” - a proposal advocated by such impeccably credentialed members of the US foreign policy establishment as former US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering - America’s Trotskyite press could have had a field day.

“The Revolution Betrayed,” their headlines could have blared. “Iran Accepts Bush Administration Premise It Has Fewer Rights Than Brazil.”

Some accuse the Bush Administration of having a double standard on Iran’s nuclear program. But this is misleading. It’s really a triple standard. Moreover, Iran has, in principle, accepted the operation of a triple standard.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is premised on a double standard. There’s one set of commitments for the nuclear powers - like the United States - and another set of commitments for the non-nuclear powers, like Iran.

Then there’s the “actually existing” Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT “as observed.” In the NPT “as observed,” the nuclear powers don’t actually have to do anything, except mumble the word “disarmament” under their breath occasionally, with their fingers crossed behind their backs, while trying not to laugh. The non-nuclear powers, of course, have actual commitments that they are expected to comply with.

What the Bush Administration has been arguing for is a triple standard: one standard for the nuclear powers, one standard for the non-nuclear powers, and a third standard for a group of countries which may be defined as follows: “Iran, so long as it has a government that we don’t like.”

The Bush Administration argues that because Iran was not transparent about its nuclear program in the past, it has forfeited its right to enrich uranium for a peaceful nuclear program under the NPT, like Brazil.

And Iran, if it accepts the Pickering proposal, is accepting the premise that it should have fewer rights than Brazil. Iran is not, if it accepts the Pickering proposal, contesting the operation of a triple standard. It’s simply contesting what the triple standard should be - advocating that the triple standard be international control of an enrichment program on Iranian soil, rather than no enrichment program on Iranian soil at all.

But the Bush Administration refuses to acknowledge that there is a serious Iranian proposal on the table - or that the proposal has supporters among America’s foreign policy elite - because according to the Bush Administration the standoff is over whether there can be any enrichment in Iran at all, under any circumstances, ever, so long as Iran has a government that the US doesn’t like. So any proposal that countenances enrichment on Iranian soil, is by the Bush Administration’s definition, not serious.

This might seem to some like an insider policy debate. But Americans have a big stake in changing the current US policy. Because of the Bush Administration’s current policy, the United States and Iran stand at the precipice of war. Because of the Bush Administration’s current policy, the United States and Iran cannot cooperate to help bring peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If there were political settlements to the violent conflicts in these countries, which Iran could help facilitate and enforce, U.S. soldiers who are currently on track to die in these conflicts could instead come home and rejoin their families.

Of course, the Bush Administration places a higher value on enforcing its dogma about Iran’s nuclear program than it does on the lives of U.S. soldiers.

But what about us?

by Robert Naiman

Among American newspapers, only the Boston Globe, apparently, thinks its readers might be interested to know that there is a proposal on the table that could bridge the gap between Iran’s insistence on its right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil and international concern that Iran’s enrichment program would increase the capacity of Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future.

On the Globe’s website, the article is filed under “education.” Apparently, if you live in the Boston area, you get to learn about this not because a deal could prevent war between the United States and Iran, not because this proposal suggests that, contrary to the claims of the Bush Administration and Senator McCain, it might be possible to draw an enforceable line between Iran having an enrichment program and Iran having a nuclear weapons program, but because several people who have worked on the proposal are on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Perhaps the MIT folks could expand their team to universities in New York and Washington, so that Americans outside of the Boston area may read about it.

The Globe’s Farah Stockman reported yesterday:

A deeply controversial plan put forth by MIT scientists to end the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program is getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists.

The plan, which was rejected three years ago by the Bush administration, argues for a dramatic shift in US policy: Rather than trying to halt Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium, the United States should help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace Iran’s current facilities.

Supporters argue that such a program would fulfill Iran’s insistence on enriching uranium on its own soil, while preventing the dangerous material from being diverted to weapons.

Iran has expressed interest in the proposal, the Globe reports:

Iranian officials proposed building an international enrichment plant inside Iran in a letter they submitted to the United Nations last month, but declined to say whether such a plant would be in addition to or a replacement for their own facilities.

In an interview last month, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, said the details should be negotiated.

Senior Members of Congress have expressed interest:

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the plan should be explored.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan “a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution.”

An “informal adviser” to the Obama campaign “did not rule the option out”:

Presidential candidates John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, have both endorsed using international consortiums to produce nuclear fuel as a way to take production out of the hands of unpredictable states, but neither has said he would consider placing such a facility inside Iran. McCain’s campaign said an Iran-based plant would not be “subject to transparent and accountable international safeguards.” But advisers to Obama did not rule the option out.

“This is nobody’s first choice, but it may be the compromise we end up with,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist who serves informally as an adviser to Obama’s campaign. Cirincione is president of the Ploughshares Fund, a nonproliferation organization based in San Francisco that provided funding for talks that Pickering and his associates held with Iranian officials.

When will the readers of the New York Times and the Washington Post get to learn about this? Years from now, when it can be acknowledged as a “missed opportunity” for U.S. diplomacy?

At the National Conference on Media Reform, Janine Jackson of FAIR was asked about challenging the media’s failure to report. It’s hard to do media criticism, she said, where there is nothing to criticize. The reporting of one outlet can be used to criticize the others.

So ask away, media critics: how come readers of the Boston Globe get to know about this, but not readers of the New York Times or the Washington Post?

by Robert Naiman

At the height of the Reagan Administration, it was not uncommon to see a bumper sticker promoted by the College Republicans: “What About Afghanistan?”

The implied argument was along the lines of: those who object to the Reagan Administration’s efforts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua should be dismissed as hypocrites, since they are apparently unconcerned about the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

It was a silly argument. The citizens of every country have a primary responsibility to concern themselves with the crimes of their own government, and what the Soviet Union was doing in Afghanistan in no way justified what the U.S. was doing in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

But today this bumper sticker seems far more appropriate. Perhaps we can scoop some up for cheap at a College Republican remainder shop and put them on our cars.

What about Afghanistan? A majority of the U.S. population and the Congress - like the majority of Iraqis and Iraqi parliamentarians - want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq by a date certain. Senator Obama, the Democratic nominee, is expected by his supporters to get the U.S. out of Iraq if he is elected President.

But about our other war, the war in Afghanistan, there is little public debate. Why not?

We know how Afghanistan and Iraq were different. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan did appear to have some relationship to the September 11 attacks. Unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Taliban did have a relationship with Al Qaeda.

Legitimate questions can be raised about the justifications and international legality of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. But suppose we put those arguments to one side. Even if the original U.S. invasion were justified, would that mean we must acquiesce to an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan?

Nearly seven years after U.S. forces invaded and occupied Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban government, perhaps we could consider what Afghanistan and Iraq have in common.

U.S. soldiers are still being killed and wounded there. While fewer U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq (517 vs. 4094, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count,) if you compare deaths to forces deployed a different picture emerges. There have been 189 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in 2008 vs. 42 in Afghanistan, while there are about 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and about 30,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. So from the point of view of an individual soldier being deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, your chance of being killed is about the same.

As in Iraq, in Afghanistan, civilians are regularly killed by U.S. forces in military operations that have not been authorized by the supposedly sovereign government.

As in Iraq, in Afghanistan, citizens are detained indefinitely by U.S. forces, without the protection of internationally-recognized human rights.

As in Iraq, U.S. military operations are justified as part of a “war on terror,” but are entangled in internal political conflicts that have an ethnic and sectarian character, contributing to the belief that the objective of the U.S. is not simply to establish security in the country, but to ensure the dominance of one group or political faction over another.

As in Iraq, current U.S. policy includes no plan or efforts for a political resolution that includes all major factions and all neighbors.

As in Iraq, there is an open-ended commitment, no exit strategy and no plan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

What is especially worrisome is the sense that the Democratic leadership in Congress has decreed, for domestic political purposes, that the war in Afghanistan is “the good war,” regardless of how long the war goes on, and regardless of what is actually happening on the ground. In this view, it’s convenient for Democrats to “triangulate,” to protect themselves against the argument that they are “weak on defense” because they want to get out of Iraq by having another war they can point to which they can say they support.

That may be useful in terms of domestic politics, but it’s not good policy, either from the point of view of people in Afghanistan or of military families and taxpayers in the United States.

Moreover, the continuous reinforcement of the idea that it’s the “Democratic position” that the war in Afghanistan is “the good war” and beyond question stifles debate necessary to reform U.S. policies. In 2006, when Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist reasonably suggested that the war against Taliban guerillas couldn’t be won militarily and that “people who call themselves Taliban” should be brought into the Afghan government, he was attacked by Democrats for trying to “cut and run.” And that was the end of that discussion. Almost two years later, are we any closer to “victory” in Afghanistan, whatever that is? This week Peter Beaumont noted in the Guardian that claims that foreign forces were “routing” the Taliban “would surprise Afghans.”

What is needed now, at least, is to begin public debate. And Members of Congress, if they want, know how to begin debate on such a topic. It was in a similar environment, when Members of Congress wanted to introduce into discussion a dose of politically controversial reality that wasn’t being acknowledged or addressed by policy, that they formed the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

How about an Afghanistan Study Group? It would be a start. Perhaps it could issue its report just after the November election, when there will be less temptation to spin its findings.

by Robert Naiman

How often have we been told that institutions of our society that dominate public debate over foreign policy - Congress, the intelligence bureaucracy, the media - learned lessons from the run-up to the Iraq war, and everything is different now?

Now these claims are put to the test, because we are witnessing a concerted campaign to scare and misinform the American public about Iran. At this writing, six in ten Americans - including half of McCain voters - want U.S. talks with Iran. These folks are the target of the misinformation and scaring campaign.

The Bush Administration and most mainstream media are ignoring that Iran has a proposal on the table that would allow uranium enrichment in Iran to be under international control - a proposal whose outline has been endorsed by independent, international experts.

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan - could there be a better source? - has warned that just as the Bush Administration deliberately misrepresented what it knew in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we should expect the Bush Administration to misrepresent what it knows to justify an attack on Iran.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann asked McClellan late last week, “Knowing what you know, if [White House spokeswoman] Dana Perino gets up there and starts making noises that sound very similar to what you heard from the administration … in 2002, … you would be suspicious?”

“I would be,” McClellan answered. “I think that you would need to take those comments very seriously and be skeptical.”

Congress needs to take the Bush administration very seriously and be skeptical of its claims on Iran. A coalition of groups working for real talks between the U.S. and Iran is promoting a call-in and write-in to Congress on June 10. As part of that campaign, these groups are putting an ad in Washington media calling on Congress not to let us be dragged into war, and calling for direct, comprehensive talks with Iran without preconditions.

The text of the ad reads:

Congress Must Not Be Left Asking What Happened in Iran. The Bush administration will say and do anything to justify an attack on Iran.
Not sure? Just ask former press secretary Scott McClellan.

Congress must act to ensure that the President does not take the U.S. into another catastrophic war. It’s time for direct, comprehensive talks with Iran without preconditions.”

You can see the layout of the ad - and throw a dollar in the hat - here.

by Robert Naiman

Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama “quickly backtracked” from his remarks in a speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” a statement that had drawn widespread criticism from Palestinians, the Washington Post reports.

In a interview Thursday with CNN, Obama said:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Jewish Voice for Peace welcomed Senator Obama’s clarification, noting that his original statement “undermined the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Obama promises to promote,” adding:

“Indeed, declaring Jerusalem as Israeli-ruled-only violates U.S. policy and international standards. It ignores Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem and the more than 240,000 Palestinian residents there, while implicitly supporting Israel’s continued land expropriation, demolition of Palestinian homes, and expansion of settlement building, such as the 900 tenders issued to new housing for Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem this week.”

While Obama’s clarification certainly undoes some of the damage of his original statement, it’s undoubtedly still the case that the net effect of Senator Obama and Senator McCain’s appearances at AIPAC last week and their remarks there was to make the prospects of a constructive U.S. role in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace more remote.

Indeed, the same day Obama spoke to AIPAC, Palestinian President Abbas called for a resumption of dialogue between his Fatah movement and Hamas. While in terms of Palestinian interests, this is a very sensible policy, it’s also a symptom of the breakdown of the current diplomatic process. President Abbas’ statement has been interpreted among Palestinians as an admission that he’s not getting anything out of diplomacy with the U.S. and Israel. Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s remarks at AIPAC have added weight to the widespread belief in the region that U.S. policy is beholden to the right-wing in Israel, there is no prospect of change on the horizon, and those who wish to secure Palestinian rights will have to look for friends elsewhere.

Senators Obama and McCain could easily do something about this. They could take this opportunity to affirm their support for Palestinian rights, as they have both done in the past - McCain, most famously, when in an apparently unscripted burst of empathy he explained to an interviewer his understanding of why Palestinians voted for Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.

If you agree that Senators Obama and McCain should affirm their support for Palestinian rights, Jewish Voice for Peace and Just Foreign Policy encourage you to ask them to do so.

by Robert Naiman

Who doesn’t love reading the Washington Post? You never know when an
otherwise quotidian article is going to have a Toy Surprise stashed at the end.

Here are the last two paragraphs of yesterday’s 15 paragraph article on McCain’s speech to AIPAC:

McCain’s opposition to meeting with Iranian leaders puts him at odds with most Americans and nearly half of his supporters, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday. Nearly six in 10 respondents in the poll said it would be a “good idea” for the U.S. president to meet with the president of Iran, and two-thirds thought the president should be open to talks with America’s enemies more broadly.

Those who back Obama in a hypothetical general-election match-up with McCain overwhelmingly (78 percent) favored direct presidential-level talks with Iran, as did 47 percent of those who would vote for McCain if the election were held today.

So, while the crowd at AIPAC may have been “approving” when McCain “again mocked” Senator Obama for his support for talks without pre-conditions, as the Washington Post reported, Senator McCain and the approving AIPAC crowd were also mocking 6 in 10 Americans, including 78% of Obama supporters and 47% of McCain supporters. How elitist is that?

Senator McCain is playing a dangerous game, pandering to AIPAC - both for himself and for AIPAC. He’s drawing attention to the fact that he and the supporters of AIPAC are well outside the mainstream of American public opinion on this issue, at a time when AIPAC is under renewed scrutiny for its ties to right-wing religious extremist John Hagee.

But he’s also potentially undermining a historic opportunity for a comprehensive agreement between the United States and Iran. Lebanon’s factions have already cut a deal. Israel is talking with Syria, and negotiating with Hamas through Egypt. A thaw in U.S.-Iran relations could have dramatic effects, helping promote reconciliation and stability in Iraq, and facilitating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

And the outline of an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is increasingly clear. On Saturday, the Boston Globe published an interview with Iran’s UN Ambassador, in which the Ambassador restated Iranian interest in establishing an “internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation,” as has been advocated by many independent experts, including former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering.

John McCain wants Americans to think that Senator Obama’s advocacy of talks with Iran without pre-conditions is naïve and inexperienced, but it’s John McCain who’s naïve, and he has the wrong kind of experience. It’s naïve to think that America has the resources, or Americans have the stomach, to try to permanently control the Middle East on the basis of unilateral force. Peace and stability in the Middle East will require compromise, negotiation, and bringing all parties to the table.

As for experience, as a piano teacher once told me:

“It does no good to practice if you’re playing the piece wrong.”