Latest Column

How incredibly ironic.
.
Saddam’s WMD’s are still grave danger to US interests.
.
Funny how that works.

Be it occurrin’ t’ ANYONE livin’ “journo-world” tha’, just perchance, it were events happenin’ on th’ ground in Iran, rather than th’ unrelentin’ blowin’ o’ Black Johnnie McCain, th’ were th’ cause o’ th’ President condemnin’ th’ violence happenin’ thar? Tha’, just maybe, he were takin’ a measured response predicat’d on th’ actual situation? Oh, no…couldn’t've been an appropriate, thoughtul response, ‘a long, long last, mates – must’ve been more weakness – tha’ be th’ Republican neocon story!
.
I be ri’ tired o’ hearin’ every foul word spewed by th’ losers o’ th’ Republican Party li’ anythin’ they may be sayin’ be actual accountin’ fer anythin’ – ‘r in anyways related t’ truth. O’ course, as long as they be able t’ count on th’ MSM t’ faithfully ass-kiss an’ behave as though th’ losers still be steerin’ th’ ship, they’ve no incentive t’ luff their sails. If only this amount o’ attention ‘ad been paid t’ th’ minority party when th’ Repubs were floatin’ an’ armada o’ lies an’ deception!
.
Th’ rest o’ th’ column – good work – thought provokin’, Joe, me lad.
.
Arrgh!

Thanks, Joe. I’m pretty sick of the Reagan “tear down this wall” argument. This is one reason McCain wasn’t elected. With people like McCain and Bush our enemies can count on their reactions, they know what buttons to push to get the bellicosity flowing.
.
Those pictures from Iran should rightly outrage most people. It is easy to be outraged and speak from that rage. It takes strength to resist.
.
Obama doesn’t play the Great Satan role, for that he is weak.
.
Up is down, wrong is right, strength is weakness. I love politics.

It feels like a good time to repost my “Week that was” entry from last week:
.
Klein, Joe
So intent on proving that real reporters are better than bloggers inadvertantly makes all other reporters look lame in comparison as well….
.
You coudn’t have known in advance just how valuable your trip to Iran would prove to be but I’m certainly grateful that made the effort.

Thank you JK for your continuing frank and sober analysis.
.
I do have one critique, if I may. You wrote: “Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they have to reveal all their nuclear activities, which they haven’t done,” a senior Administration official told me.. As I understand it, Iran is consistent in honoring its NPT obligations; they have rejected the Additional Protocols of the IAEA.

Pintortwo–

As I understand it, the Additional Protocols were added because Iran hid its weaponization program–apparently suspended in 2003–for nearly twenty years. This is the sort of situation that might be resolved if a good faith negotiating relationship were established between the U.S. and Iran, but each country–for foolish reasons, usually–has refused to enter into such a relationship.

That 4th paragraph, on the divisions in Iranian society and government, is the clearest, most concise and insightful explanation of what’s going on there that I’ve read. Thanks for your fine reporting.
-
It seems to me, in light of the fact that the uprising against the shah took nearly a year to complete, that it’s quite a bit too early to conclude that there’s a “growing sense that the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime would prevail against the demonstrators.” I believe that Juan Cole has pointed this out. Am I missing something?
-
Also, why mention McCain? No one cares what he thinks about anything. It’s last fall’s financial crisis, yet again– he offers the emotional, irrational, lashing out that is his MO. He lost. He’s the future of nothing. Who cares?

Also, why mention McCain?
.
That’s easy to answer. He’s actually the “reasonable” front man for an entire school of thought that advocates that there’s no problem too big or small to bomb into submission. His own position may be marginalized at the moment. But his style of thought is one that we ignore at our peril.

PD –
.
Thar be a world o’ difference ‘tween payin’ attention t’ a peril, an’ promotin’ tha’ peril as if it be th’ reasonable course o’ action.
.
Or reportin’ as if tha’ peril be a more legitimate approach than th’ course bein’ steered by the cap’n.
.
Arrgh!

It’s interesting that the Iranian leadership (reasonably) chooses to remember British damage to the region but apparently ignores the equal damage Russia inflicted. Iran was a site, perhaps the site, for their imperial competition long before oil. Admittedly the rhetoric of Russian intervention changed after 1917 but it was still essentially meddling in Iran’s internal affairs.
.
About the domestic political implications for Obama of negotiating with Iran, I think they are grave unless he can actually be honest enough to tell the whole truth: Iranians hate the American government for good reasons so endorsing opposition movements would be about as helpful Bush’s endorsement of McCain in 08.
.
But he’s not going to say that.

One more thought…
.
The neocon argument that a nuclear Iran would be immune to deterrence because it is irrational is ironic in light of the fact that it would probably be irrational for Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions since it has two nuclear rivals whose politicians frequently voice their hatred of Iran: America and Israel.

Thank you for replying JK.
.
As per Iran’s possible weaponization program, you might find US Navy Commander Jeff Huber’s take interesting:
.
.
The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran may have had a nuclear weapons program) “does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons” in one sentence, but assumes in the next sentence that Iran’s nuclear activities are only “partly civil in nature” (page 4).
.
It judges with “moderate confidence” that the earliest Iran would be capable of producing a weapon is “late 2009,” but then it says that is “very unlikely” (page 7). If you’re moderately confident that something is very unlikely, why would you even bother to mention it, much less include it in an intelligence estimate?
It states: “We do not have sufficient intelligence” to “judge confidently” whether “Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program.” But we’re confident enough about the sufficiency of our intelligence (presumably) to warn that Tehran may “already” have “set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program” (page 7). This NIE is starting to sound like one big confidence game, isn’t it?
.
The NIE says that, “We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon” (page 6). Hells bells, we can’t rule out that the Vulcans will reveal themselves to us tomorrow night and let us in on the secret of their matter/anti-matter drive.
.
(snip)
.
The only thing that can spoil the scheme is if some disloyal, un-American smarty pants takes a cursory glance at Iran’s nuclear timeline. Any smarty pants who does that can’t help but notice that Russia didn’t begin building Iran’s first nuclear reactor until September of 2002, and that the International Atomic Energy Commission said there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program in November of 2003, which is around the time the latest NIE says Iran “halted” its nuclear weapons program.

The thing that I find so annoying is the self-righteous tone adopted by McCain and his hangers on: Graham and Lieberman. These are three very toxic pols whose first resort is to threaten foreigners. None of these guys have mellowed over time. In the case of Lieberman he conducts his own foreign policy with Israel.

So Obama has to deal with Iran, Syria and even Lebanon knowing that there is an unhelpful chorus singing tone deaf notes and pretending that they have all the answers to our problems in the Middle East – and North Korea. Will Kim Jong Il takes these guys? They will plenty of scope for belligerent rhetoric. How about it Great Undisputed Leader?

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, Joe Klein.
.
Your reports are made exponentially more valuable from the clarity you can provide from such engagement, and so both are that much more appreciated by us engaged news consumers.

Rose:
.
It’s interesting that the Iranian leadership (reasonably) chooses to remember British damage to the region but apparently ignores the equal damage Russia inflicted.
.
This is indeed an interesting phenomenon, thanks for reminding us.

Very interesting about the internal factions within Iran – thanks.

Joe Klein:
.
Better to hear it from us than from (always wrong about everything) National Review polemicists:
.

It is an open question whether the Supreme Leader is really in charge or is just a front for the military, led by Ahmadinejad,” an Iranian analyst speculated. But the point is moot: Khamenei, who had attempted to stand above the Iranian factions, is now yoked to Ahmadinejad.

How does that claim square with your previous analysis?

When I visited Iran a few years ago, my favorite question was, “Who runs this country?”
.
There is a secular President, mouthy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a supreme leader, the Ayatullah Ali Khamenei.
.
There is a constitutional tension between those two offices, a tension that may have been heightened in the past year by Ahmadinejad’s close relationship with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.
.
…my conspiracy theory: It starts with the fact that no one really does know who runs Iran.

…and then this:

It seems the only way the neoconservatives are able to attack Barack Obama’s foreign policy proposals is to exaggerate and misrepresent them.
.
The evidence? On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate–specifically, by name–with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.
.
He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership–but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran’s nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad.
.
Why doesn’t the McCain campaign and other assorted Republicans ever accuse Obama of wanting to negotiate with Khamenei?

…So how exactly did you find out that Khamenei is “the guy in charge of foreign policy and Iran’s nuclear program”, Joe Klein?
.
What evidence is there for this claim?
.
Part of the problem, as you yourself note, is that there is nominal authority, and then there is actual authority based on relationships with the extra-state military, i.e. the Guards:

So let’s speculate that there’s a difference of opinion between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei about how to proceed on nuclear negotiations with the West.
.
Let’s say Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to negotiate. Let’s say he wants to send a message to the West, to the Israelis and also to Khamenei: I’m not a powerless figurehead like my predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. My friends in the Revolutionary Guards give me veto power over any deal.
.
It would not be difficult for Ahmadinejad to send the message, via the Guards, to both Hizballah and the military wing of Hamas, which is based in Damascus and funded in part by Iran: Let’s rile up the Israelis and start a crisis. Let’s change the subject from the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

So which is it, Joe Klein?
.
Is negotiating with Iran –especially after the Supreme Leader’s endorsement of the Ahmadinejad “election”– tantamount to negotiating with Ahmadinejad, or isn’t it?
.
Or do we not know, and we shouldn’t pretend to?
.
Perhaps a real answer to that question, i.e. an answer that isn’t based chats with the thoroughly discredited Ken Pollack, should be sought before perhaps prematurely writing “Freedom is on the march!” speculative rhetoric such as

Khamenei and various flunkies also blamed the U.S., especially the CIA, for the unrest, but the attacks on the Great Satan were muted — a curious development.
.
Was it due to Barack Obama’s initial, temperate response to the rigged election results?
.
Was it a recognition that Obama’s Cairo speech and New Year’s greeting to the Iranian people had made him popular across the Persian political spectrum, a less convincing Satan than George W. Bush had been?

Unless you’re prepared to tell your audience that a majority of Iranians to whom you’ve spoken have answered “Yes, by golly! It’s so different now with Obama in office!”, that sort of rhetorical question has as much real analytical value as speculation about the meaning of Democratic candidates’ body language during the last primary debates.
.
There is much that is subtle, complex and unknowable about Iranian politics –a fact that, in and of itself refutes neo-conservative ideologues time and again– without further needless opacity being generated by politicization.
.
Would you please reconcile for your (good faith) engaged readers how:

A) nobody really knows who’s in control of Iran
.
B) Khamenei is in control of foreign policy and nuclear development
.
C) by negotiating with Iran with respect to its nuclear ambitions, Obama would not be negotiating with Ahmadinejad
.
D) Khamenei is now yoked to Ahmadinejad

, Joe Klein?
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this.

He’s actually the “reasonable” front man for an entire school of thought that advocates that there’s no problem too big or small to bomb into submission.
-
Well, OK, and if we wanted to know how conditions in Iran might be ameliorated by a dictatorship of the proletariat, then we should ask Mikhail Gorbachev for his views. You’re right that we ought not ignore maniac McCainism, but nor should we put it on equal footing with current US policy and leadership.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction between the “Revolutionary” Generation and the “Iran-Iraq War” Generation. The Shah fell in 1979 thanks to a combination of fundamentalist students, socialists, clergy, and democratic activists putting unbearable pressure on the regime. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran – leaving the same group that welcomed the Ayatollah back with open arms to take up arms and rush to the battlefield. So, how is there a difference between the two groups? Isn’t this a false dichotomy?
.
Isn’t the real difference in this whole mess a difference between younger, well-educated kids who are tired of the Religious Police and their and the much more conservative, less educated, and less well off masses who have benefited from the regime’s use of oil revenue to help improve their lot in life?

@SZ,
As I’ve said before in a different context: When push comes to shove, the guy who’s in charge is the one physically holding the weapon.

Stuart Z: Excellent questions/observations. I don’t know that we have many answers. Certainly, the fact that we have not had an embassy in Tehran (and an often adversarial relationship with Iran) suggests that we don’t know much.
.
Prof Cole had an illuminating (though incomplete with regard to your query) post recently:
.
Iran’s Guardianship Council, a sort of clerical senate on Tuesday ruled out any cancellation of the results of the recent presidential election, as called for by the opposition. The official outcome gave incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term. The vote tallies for Ahmadinejad have struck large numbers of Iranians as wholly unbelievable. So the Supreme Leader has spoken and the Guardianship Council has spoken.
.
It should be underlined that as it developed in 1979-1980, the revolutionary Iranian regime has two wings. There is a sphere of clerical authority, represented by Khamenei, and a sphere of popular sovereignty, represented by the parliament and, later, the president. The clerical sphere includes not only Khamenei but also two collective bodies, the Guardianship Council and the Expediency Council (which has among other duties the charge of reconciling conflicts between the civil parliament and the Guardianship Council). The clerical sphere also includes the judiciary.
.
The sphere of popular sovereignty is subordinate to the clerical sphere, but not a puppet of it. The parliament has passed laws that were known to be disliked by Khamenei. The popular sphere was a place that ordinary laymen could blow off steam. Reformists such as former president Mohammad Khatami used the presidency as a bully pulpit to press for more freedom of expression and more rights for women. He was largely blocked by the clerical sphere, but while he was president he did effect changes.
.
The election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 changed these dynamics, since his views overlapped in some areas with those of the clerical sphere. In essence, Iran moved closer to being a one-party state. By stealing the election for Ahmadinejad, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has effectively made a coup on behalf of the clerical sphere in alliance with lay hard liners, which threatens to virtually abolish the sphere of popular sovereignty. That is what Mousavi and Karroubi and their followers are objecting to so vehemently. From the outside, Iran was often depicted as a totalitarian state. But from the inside it seemed to have wriggle room. The reformers are saying that the regime has just moved toward really being a totalitarian state and is now removing any space for dissent.
.
.
It seems that Khamenei has consolidated power and would, unless circumstances change, be the one to deal with.

There is much that is subtle, complex and unknowable about Iranian politics –a fact that, in and of itself refutes neo-conservative ideologues time and again– without further needless opacity being generated by politicization.
.
stuart, well said.
.
pinortwo, and if Khamenai has in fact given the election to Ahmadinejad that would also in and of itself increase his influence over Ahmadinejad, and by extension the Presidency. Stealing an election for someone is a great way to boost your leverage.
.
And why is the thread count so much higher on the 18th Sanford post?! I have a deadline so I can’t contribute much, but obviously other people do have enough time to comment today.

“The truth is, Iran’s government is a conservative, defensive, rational military dictatorship that manages to subdue its working-class majority softly, by distributing oil revenues downward.”
.
A very accurate description, in my opinion.
.
I think also, that treading lightly is the best approach here. The pressure from within mounted by the reform movement may a big enough stick to help Obama in his efforts to reign in Iran’s nuclear program (the weoponization processes).
.
The reform movement has a chance of accomplishing, at little cost to us, what McCain, Neocon, and GOP bluster never will.

pintortwo:
.
Thanks so much for the repost of Prof Cole’s analysis, which I usually find interesting and fact-based.
.
Based on that analysis, it looks as if Obama’s DoS will be negotiating with Ahmadinejad, a point that will be thrown in Joe Klein’s face by Bush’s apologists (to his apparent chagrin).
.
But I am unconvinced that the Supreme Leader is responsible for whatever fraud took place, although he is certainly now responsible for the further illegitimacy of the election.
.
The question remains: Who actually coordinated the actual stealing of the election?

Jeez:
.
Who actually coordinated the actual stealing of the election?
.
“Department of Redundancy Department”
.
That should read “Who actually coordinated the physical stealing of the election?“

Rose:
.
…why is the thread count so much higher on the 18th Sanford post?!
.
Because we apparently have the political press corps that we deserve.

Rose:
.
…why is the thread count so much higher on the 18th Sanford post?!
.
I joined Oregon JC yesterday in his bid to de-legitimize this avalanche of tabloid rubbish happening to take place exactly during the back-room dealing over health care.
.
I’m honestly revolted by the commentary in those threads; it’s so petty, beneath dignity and so clearly corroborates the elite press corps’ notions of us proletarian idiots that I’m nauseated.
.
People just can’t seem to help themselves, and it’s demoralizing.

Ah, Stuart,
.
Don’t be givin’ up hope, me lad! Some o’ us can be doin’ more’n one thing a’ once!
.
An’, some o’ us be needin’ a break fr’m th’ demoralizin’ sellin’ us out tha’ be goin’ on in th’ Congress ri’ this very minute.
.
Some o’ us feel we been beatin’ our ‘eads against th’ wall wi’ our representatives, wi’ th” President, an’ wi’ th’ media all fer naught.
.
Some o’ us be takin’ our frustrations wi’ our complete an’ utter lack o’ influence wi’ th’ people who are supposed t’ be representin’ us tha’ we be lancin’ our boils in th’ threads o’ no consequence t’ try an’ get th’ poison out.
.
Don’t be judgin’ us too harshly – we be no diff’rent than th’ Chinese, who, bein’ stark aware o’ where they be standin’ in th’ effort t’ effect change, retreat t’ consumerism lookin’ fer some sort o’ satisfaction, sham ‘r no.
.
I be tryin’ t’ say that thar be other influences a-workin’ b’low decks ‘ere tha’ be explainin’ th’ phenominan ye’re witnessin’ wi’ th’ Sanford threads – ‘ave a wee bit o’ pity, me hearty!
.
Arrgh!

As it’s a quite day in the Swamp (I don’t care about Sanford), I decided to find Cmdr Huber’s other article on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program. So, if you’re interested, you can read a non-establishment analysis of the NIE publication which serves as justification for much of US Foreign Policy toward (and media debate of) Iran.

…Should read: “quite a slow day in the Swamp…”

PR, I would seriously suggest commenting on those Angelina vs. Jen stories instead, if you really need a break from talking about things that actually matter. By obsessing on Sanford you are encouraging the political media to spend their time investigating these utterly unimportant stories, and thus further reducing the likelihood that the MSM will focus on important issues like health care and Iran. At least if you comment on People or something then you’re not complicit in the destruction of political journalism.
.
Reading this over it sounds harsh, but I don’t want to pretend this is less important than it is. Anyway I hope you understand that my aim isn’t to criticize you or anyone else.

Ah, but ye ‘ave, Rose, ye ‘ave .
.
Arrgh!

Rose, from a dead thread yesterday:
~
http://www.atimes.com/
~
I’ve not had time to read much of it yet, but if you search for SCO @ Asia Times a load of hits turn up.

Probably won’t get an answer out of Joe if I haven’t already, but as I stated earlier:
.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction between the “Revolutionary” Generation and the “Iran-Iraq War” Generation. The Shah fell in 1979 thanks to a combination of fundamentalist students, socialists, clergy, and democratic activists putting unbearable pressure on the regime. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran – leaving the same group that welcomed the Ayatollah back with open arms to take up arms and rush to the battlefield. So, how is there a difference between the two groups? Isn’t this a false dichotomy?
.
Isn’t the real difference in this whole mess a difference between younger, well-educated kids who are tired of the Religious Police and their and the much more conservative, less educated, and less well off masses who have benefited from the regime’s use of oil revenue to help improve their lot in life?
.
Any thoughts on this? I heard Joe make this argument on NPR, and it didn’t make sense then. Having read it in print, it still doesn’t make sense. Ahmadinajad was a student revolutionary according to everything I’ve read.

And just when you thought Joe Klein was above something like Sanford & sin! Did your colleagues ask you to come slumming with them, to dillute the collective shame they should feel? Am I wrong or is JNS now the only one to evade the issue?
~
Re: the article, my disparate 2 cents:
~
1. Are Brits feeling pretty good about themselves, hearkening back to their days of glory? The notion that we’re not the principal locus of hate is rather astonishing.
~
2. Am I the only one stunned by such casual, even fashionable insertions like “including the provision of chemicals that Saddam used to concoct poison gas”? Where was such language in the run-up to the Iraq War? Add Time’s 3rd mention of the ’53 coup in recent weeks: kudos to Joe, but please, in the future when engagement is not the American agenda, when a nation like Iran or Iraq is part of some neocon’s axis fantasy, the attn. to history and context is then even more valuable.
~
3. Beyond Mac seeking to score political pts, Joe, do you think it’s also possible that the entire neocon apparatus is, in fact, attempting to maintain enemies, that peace is not their true objective. This is, of course, rhetorical, but the 680$ billion military budget would be a lot harder to justify if we spoke to our enemies, closed some of our 700+ bases around the world, and acknowledged that an empire is not sustainble or in Americans’ best interests.
~
But I have to go sniff some more glue now, so please excuse me…

Oregon JC:
.
Am I the only one stunned by such casual, even fashionable insertions…
.
The new honesty is bizarre. It’s like they’ve all been cured of “Please don’t say we hate America!”-fever.
.
It’s like, I dunno, saying that Israel has nukes or something.
.
It’s weird, but I’m trying not to jinx it.

I should imagine the British are more perplexed than anything else, although Iran probably takes second place to economic issues and the turmoil in the mother of parliaments over expenses. Yes, it is a good article, one of Klein’s best in recent years.
.
On an unrelated issue that was dragged into this thread quite gratuitously: it is hardly a good thing to advocate not covering stories like the Sanford adultery. Accountability and honesty matter in politicians, and giving them a free ride in the name of “not being tabloid” is a pretty poor excuse. Less self-righteousness and more thought on this issue, please. There may be a case for only having one column on it, but given Sanford’s eccentric and irresponsible behavior before the story came out, it is perfectly legitimate for Time to cover it and to do so fully and accurately. If anyone believes Time has not done so, that would be a different issue.

juniusredivivus:
.
it is hardly a good thing to advocate not covering stories like the Sanford adultery
.
Coverage commensurate with the importance of the story is the issue.
.
Accountability and honesty matter in politicians
.
To the extent that they’re accountable to for their policies, yes. To the extent that they are honest about what they will do to govern and what the policies they advocate mean, yes.
.
To substitute “accountability and honesty” interchangeably with “catch adulterous politicians” isn’t terribly valuable.
.
giving them a free ride in the name of “not being tabloid” is a pretty poor excuse
.
The tabloid and exploitative coverage has been unremarkable, except for how revealing it is of the lowness of news media producers’ opinion of their audience.
.
it is perfectly legitimate for Time to cover it and to do so fully and accurately
.
Sure, on their political gossip pages, maybe, just not with the fervor and zeal that journalists should associate with say, evaluating the claims of state officials regarding the existence of Saddam’s WMD.
.
The coverage of the affair wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for the insidious way in which reportage on important issues that affect peoples’ every day lives are devalued and ultimately suppressed more and more in favor of the supremely inessential.
.
If the balance were even 60 percent-stories whose information empowered the public to make good choices/40 percent-scandal stories replete with tawdry emails, then I probably wouldn’t feel compelled to make this argument, but it’s not.