In the Arena

Something’s Up With Iran

Charles Krauthammer today dignifies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent lunacy–he predicted a U.S. and Israeli attack on two middle eastern countries–by taking it seriously. Ahmadi’s foreign policy pronouncements are usually ill-informed, hateful nonsense designed for domestic consumption; it’s the Supreme Leader and Revolutionary Guard who control that show. Last September when a group of Time Editors interviewed Ahmadinejad on the morning that the Qom reactor was revealed by President Obama, he shocked us by seeming totally unaware of this development–he hadn’t been given his talking points yet. I’d trust Ahmadinejad, a deft footballer in school, more in his ruminations about the octopus that predicted World Cup results.

But Krauthammer is right that there’s something going on, something very important, with Iran–something that he and his fellow neoconservatives didn’t anticipate. (Indeed, no one did.) The sanctions are working; they’re having a major impact on the Iranian economy. The powerful bazaari community has been shocked not just by the universal support for the sanctions, but also by their comprehensive nature. Iranian ships are sitting at their docks because they international community is refusing to insure them. Banks that have done business with Iran in the past are refusing to do so now because the UN sanctions–that’s right, those “weak” UN sanctions–target them as well. The Iranian economy, a stagflation fiasco before the sanctions, is cracking.

As a result, the Administration has been receiving all sorts of feelers–public and, for the first time, private–from the Iranians about resuming the negotiations on the nuclear program. Recently, the Iranians have promised not to enrich their uranium to the higher 20% level they threatened earlier–and proceed with the uranium exchange plan they negotiated with Turkey and Brazil. That’s not sufficient. Any negotiations must take place within the IAEA matrix, with the UN Security Council’s 5 permanent members, including the U.S., plus Germany. I’d hope that the Obama Administration would insist on a concession–a meaningful sign of good faith from the Iranians–like increased access for IAEA inspectors and the release of documents relating to their nuclear program that the IAEA has asked for, and not received, in the past–before any new round of negotiations begins. Too often in the past, the Iranians have used negotiations as a stall; they have to understand that’s no longer possible. (If necessary, to preserve Iranian national pride after a century of being ordered around and messed with by the colonial powers, this can be done quietly.)

There were those, led by, uh, Charles Krauthammer, who denigrated the Obama Administration’s patient and wise efforts to include Russia and China in the sanctions regime. As it happens, that diplomacy–a real achievement, by the way–seems to be having an impact. Who knows? It might even work.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • illdiz

    We have an amazing president. Progress is being made on so many fronts I’ve lost count. This is positive news, and I look forward to even more on many issues.

  • newfreedomblog

    This is indeed amazing news Joe Klein. You can really count on you for real reporting of the facts and information.
    .
    I am now confident as I have ever been the sanctions are indeed having a major impact. Like you said….
    .
    Who needs any further proof,
    Iranian ships are sitting at their docks because they international community is refusing to insure them. Banks that have done business with Iran in the past are refusing to do so now because the UN sanctions–that’s right, those “weak” UN sanctions–target them as well.”

    .
    My God you are absolutely the most incredibly informed reporter / jounalist on the planet. It seems like you have some sort of inner power that is able to read the tea leaves so well to make the assumption ships in port mean the Iranians have now given up their nuclear aspirations and are now going to go with the World Community at large to shut down all nuclear weapons.
    .
    Thank you Joe, we can all sleep so soundly tonight knowing this most informative information.

  • newfreedomblog

    Of course we had this reported on Wednesday;
    .

    “Russia joined Iran in condemning new sanctions the European Union imposed Monday to curtail Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

    In a statement Tuesday, Russia said the EU’s use of sanctions not approved by the UN Security Council is “unacceptable,” Reuters reports.

    The EU’s new sanctions, adopted Monday, put sharp limits on new oil and gas investment and curb financial links with Iran. Canada also slapped Iran with similar sanctions Monday, according to RTT News, and on June 24 the US Congress passed curbs on dealing with Iran’s banking and energy sectors.

    Russia, as a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, has signed on to four rounds of sanctions against Iran already, but doesn’t wish to take a harder line. Moscow said the EU’s tough new sanctions were counter-productive and worked at cross-purposes with a six-nation effort – which includes Russia – to resolve the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program, according to the Associated Press.

    .
    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0727/Iran-is-joined-by-Russia-in-condemning-EU-sanctions

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein:
    .
    the Administration has been receiving all sorts of feelers–public and, for the first time, private–from the Iranians
    .
    How do you know with certainty that the Administration has received private communications from the Iranians regarding the resumption of said negotiations?
    .
    Or, if you know about them, how exactly could they be private, Joe Klein?

  • grape_crush

    Ahmadi’s foreign policy pronouncements are usually ill-informed, hateful nonsense designed for domestic consumption…
    .
    You could say almost the same thing about Krauthammer, no?

  • newfreedomblog

    And, in other news…..
    .
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-28-doomsday28_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
    .

    Doomsday shelters making a comeback

    .

    “Jason Hodge, father of four children from Barstow, Calif., says he’s “not paranoid” but he is concerned, and that’s why he bought space in what might be labeled a doomsday shelter.
    Hodge bought into the first of a proposed nationwide group of 20 fortified, underground shelters — the Vivos shelter network — that are intended to protect those inside for up to a year from catastrophes such as a nuclear attack, killer asteroids or tsunamis, according to the project’s developers.”

    .
    Hello 1962 again!!
    .
    Now one could debate that Americans today feel the need for doomsday shelters to ward off potential nuclear attacks out of Iran. It could be from attacks from inside the United States from our own Government’s new policies. The jury is still out as to what is motivating people to spend money on the shelters.

  • kbanginmotown

    agreed.
    .
    Just re-read Krauthammer’s article…still looking for attaboy for President Obama…

  • grape_crush

    Perhaps there’s a difference between contacts through approved channels and more informal communications, Stuart?

  • stuartzechman

    The jury is still out as to what is motivating people to spend money on the shelters.
    .
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/iran-nuclear-progress-stirs-doubts-approach-regime/
    .
    It is?
    .
    The jury’s still out on that one?

  • stuartzechman

    Please explain, grape_crush.
    .
    I can’t see how that answers how Joe knows with certainty that such contacts are taking place, since he doesn’t say how he knows in this post –not even alluding to “more informal communications,” whatever those may be.

  • square1

    Hmmmm. Has Haliburton pulled out of Iran yet? When Iran loses Dick Cheney…

  • nflfoghorn

    What took so long? People flying planes into buildings in the early 2000s didn’t scare them enough?

  • newfreedomblog

    “The jury’s still out on that one?”

    .
    Well mr zechman, perhaps just people like Joe Klein, but I digress.

  • pintortwo

    I’d hope that the Obama Administration would insist on a concession–a meaningful sign of good faith from the Iranians–like increased access for IAEA inspectors and the release of documents relating to their nuclear program that the IAEA has asked for, and not received, in the past–before any new round of negotiations begins.
    .
    I expect the administration will insist on further concessions as a precondition to negotiations. That was the preferred tactic of Bush/Cheney (condemned by JK as disingenuous, which it was). That seems to be the pattern followed by the Obama.
    .
    Agreeing not to enrich above 20% and accepting the uranium exchange (a bad deal for Iran- it makes them dependent on foreign involvement) are significant concessions.
    .
    Has Obama sent feelers to the Iranians, prior to the new round of sanctions or since? I hope so. If not, it would indicate a desire to avoid diplomacy. A demand for concessions prior to talks will tell us that the Admin does not want to normalize relations with Iran. Unfortunately, this feels most likely to me.

  • 53_3

    I think, stuart, in situations like this, that if Joe has received back channel information, he’s receiving it because he’s trusted enough not to elaborate.
    .
    I don’t think he can be faulted for this at all. If back channel negotiations are taking place, given the seriousness of the issue, the are very sensitive.
    .
    Look to the back channel coms that led to the Oslo Acoords as a template.

  • 53_3

    Wouldn’t it be terrible if Obama’s approach to the Iran nuclear issue actually worked?!?!
    .
    What would Cootiehammer and his neocon buddies do without the need for war?

  • grape_crush

    Oh, I get it…You’re grinding your axe about anonymous sourcing again.

  • newfreedomblog

    “I can’t see how that answers how Joe knows with certainty that such contacts are taking place, since he doesn’t say how he knows in this post –not even alluding to “more informal communications,” whatever those may be.”

    .
    There are many things we disagree with stuart, but this is one area we are in complete agreement.
    .
    Perhaps for grape to understand we should use an analogy.
    .
    There once was a farmer who was so upset with a goose he had in his flock of geeze which made honking noises day and night. It was constant and non-stop. It was getting to the point he could not sleep at night. He tried everything to shut the goose up.
    .
    He heard about a new contraption, an anti-honking goose clap. A rather simple device which would allow him to quiet the goose.
    .
    It worked!! The device quieted down the goose, and harmony reined around the farm.
    .
    In an appreciation letter he wrote to the company, he thanked them for this new fangled invention. He said, “I just wanted to write and tell you, the clapper on the goose’s a$$ worked wonders. The incessant honking for no reason what-so-ever has ceased, thank you. As a side note, the clapper while it also makes a little noise, it keeps the foxes out of the hen house.”. Signed Farmer Brown

  • newfreedomblog

    reigned not reined

  • nibblybits

    So newfreedom is not keeping up with world events. Headline in Jerusalem Post earlier this week: Russia Turns on ‘Irresponsible’ Iran.
    .
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html
    .
    This is a direct result of Obama’s careful cultivation of Medvedev over the last 18 months. A little better than what Bush got from looking deep into Putin’s eyes.

  • nibblybits
  • stuartzechman

    You’re grinding your axe about anonymous sourcing again.
    .
    That’s about right.
    .
    The thing is, there’s no accountability mechanism in this at all.
    .
    What if his DOS contact(s) are telling Joe all about these “private” “feelers” precisely so that he will trumpet their “success” with respect to the policy?
    .
    What if it’s not made up per se, but that there’s serial exaggeration, so that the Administration is put in the best light?
    .
    This is the same sort of thing that plagued the press corps during the Bush Administration, only it wasn’t about diplomatic successes, it was about “foiled terror plots.”
    .
    It’s no way to report. The only response that this sort of thing merits is healthy skepticism.
    .
    Otherwise we’re merely looking for the veneer of credibility to bolster our own predetermined views of what should be the correct approach, which is precisely the sort of thing Fox News is for on the right.
    .
    We can’t be judging successful policy on whether Joe Klein has been chatted up by apparatchiks who tell him things are going swimmingly over “private” communications, just because we’d really, really like certain diplomacy strategies to work, i.e. we believe in them.

  • stuartzechman

    Could you please explain that analogy, Rustydog?
    .
    Is the “goose clapper” something that actually invited foxes into the goose pen, so the noisy goose was eaten, but the farmer never heard it? If I have that right, how does that relate to “informal communications?”
    .
    I’m sorry, I honestly do not understand that fable at all.
    .
    Thanks in advance.

  • nibblybits

    Just in the last 3 days in the Jerusalem Post:
    .
    US: Iran sanctions starting to bite — Canceled and delayed fuel deals worth $50-60B alone
    http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=183108
    .
    (AP) Australia adopts new sanctions on Iran — For the first time, Canberra limits oil, gas dealings with Tehran
    http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=183014
    .
    US seeking fuel swap meeting with Iran
    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=182954
    .
    (AP) Israel applauds Europe on Iran Sanctions — The EU and Canada on Monday separately adopted new sanctions against Iran, targeting the country’s foreign trade, banking, energy and transportation sectors.
    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=182709

  • newfreedomblog

    Oh you keep on believin’ those new found Russian friends are backing your boy Obama all the way. I am confident like Joe Klein, the Iranians are almost ready to say “Uncle” with all of this joint pressure on them now from the Russians and Chinese.
    .
    By the way, do you need the link to the doomsday shelter company?

  • newfreedomblog

    Nah stuart, it is an old saying in red neck world here where I live when someone runs off at the mouth, and does not have anything to back it up with, they will say something like….
    .
    “Wow, that Joe runs his mouth like a clapper on a goose’s A$$”

  • 53_3

    “It’s no way to report. The only response that this sort of thing merits is healthy skepticism.”
    .
    I think not. Healthy skepticism is important, I always take stuff like this with a grain of salt.
    .
    However:
    .
    Joe Klein marked the commentary so that it can be identified by skeptics, which is good journalism.
    .
    It also serves to keep him in trusted circles, which journalists must do in order to be in the right place at the right times when it comes to getting the “scoop” on a story.
    .
    In addition, with that grain of salt I mentioned, I now know enough to realize the most important point in this article, which is that there is back channel talk going on.
    .
    Of course, any premature accrual to Obama’s policies or debit on Krauthammer can be considered
    spin and taken for what it is.
    .
    Otherwise, a fairly good informative piece…

  • 53_3

    “It could be from attacks from inside the United States from our own Government’s new policies.”
    .
    Let me get this right.
    .
    Either there is going to be someone from the right who is disaffected with Obama’s policies enough to commit nuclear terror,
    .
    or,
    .
    Obama is planning to nuke “real America”
    .
    You decide…

  • geo1671

    Anything that comes out of the mouth of kurt&hammer is all kosher claptrap. haven’t we heard of this pukezionist enough on CNN and FOX? What’s wrong with you silly obtuse yankees–can you not figure out you being used by Russian Ashkenazies that infested government ann all media in USa. Wake-up fools–USA has become a 3rdworld country–We are FKN broke and still feed that ugly beast }srael. Smart’en up lets not fight their enemies. These same animals attcked us on 9/11 and Kurt&hamer wants us to believe arabs did it and now the puke wants US to go after the perssians. Kurt and Clut, Go back and take your whole lot of phonie baloney Joos–Back Back to Russia–and rot in hell satan,s Chosen Children–more like it:^/

  • sevenoaks07

    I understand SZ’s scepticism. And we can never satisfy the neocons. This piece shows some movement in the broader international community towards effective sanctions. I am looking to a response from Joe on some of the questions raised here.

  • 53_3

    I understand his skepticism too. I’m not sure how much Joe can clarify but I doubt that he will reveal his sources.
    .
    Otherwise, short of that, I agree.

  • grape_crush

    The thing is, there’s no accountability mechanism in this at all.
    .
    There is, but it’s nowhere near immediate as should be. Sure, there’s examples of news media types that flamed out with one mal-sourced story, but generally it takes more time to flush the journos who repeatedly let themselves/get used by their sources.
    .
    Some never get flushed, for various reasons.
    .
    Of course, outside of the bizzaro, semi-closed system of the right-wing media/submedia, this doesn’t apply. (See Kristol, Bill)
    .
    Having said all that, I don’t see how to get around the use (and the necessity) of using anonymous sourcing.

  • 53_3

    We have to, in this particular case, depend on Joe to avoid being snookered.
    .
    This piece is actually about what could be rather than what is. I’d bet that the way it’s written, Joe won’t suffer if Iran back out of back channel comm over it.
    .
    Joe would be overreaching if he spun it strongly enough to leave the impression that it will happen.

  • sevenoaks07

    Thanks. I don’t want Joe to reveal his sources. But it would help Joe can point to foreign sources to underline or buttress what he is hearing in Washington. For example, it should be possible to get information on which banks are complying with the sanctions. I would like to see something on whether the banks in the Arab Emirates are engaged because a lot of the leakage takes place there.

    Just a guess: Joe may be limited by the limits of the atricle’s length.

  • pintortwo

    I doubt that he will reveal his sources
    .
    The interesting thing here is that he doesn’t mention sources at all- anonymous or not. JK simply states that the Admin is receiving public and private feelers, like it’s common knowledge. But it’s not. I’m with SZ on this one. If there are “official sources”, fine, we can then decide how much credibility to give it. I’d like to know what, if anything, is being exchanged by either side.

  • stuartzechman

    JK simply states that the Admin is receiving public and private feelers, like it’s common knowledge. But it’s not.
    .
    That’s exactly right.

  • grape_crush

    edit: “let themselves/get” should be “let themselves be/get”

    We have to, in this particular case, depend on Joe to avoid being snookered.
    .
    And that’s the major point in all of this: credibility. A journalist without credible sources ends up without credibility themselves…and if an audience lacks faith/trust in the journalist, the only point in employing that person is to get page hits from people calling him a douchebag.
    .
    I’d bet that the way it’s written, Joe won’t suffer if Iran back out of back channel comm over it.
    .
    That sounds like lesson one in “how to maintain your credibility even when you’re frequently wrong”.

  • pintortwo

    Shorter #6 comment..
    .
    I’m worried that this is another example of a disturbing pattern where Obama says he’s for something when it appears he can’t get it, only to backtrack when he can.
    .
    “I want to negotiate with Iran (a public option, robust banking regs..), but the Iranians (Republicans) won’t let it happen.” -and if it turns out that he can (feelers, via reconciliation..) there will be another reason why he can’t (preconditions, “it’s too partisan”..).

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Perhaps, Stuart, you are getting the words “private” and “secret” confused. While secret meetings and communications are always private — not intended for those not invited to the table in the first place — what is said in private meetings and communications is quite often common knowledge after said meeting/
    communication has taken place.

  • nibblybits

    “I’m worried that this is another example of a disturbing pattern where Obama says he’s for something when it appears he can’t get it, only to backtrack when he can.”
    .
    Truly, an insane analysis. You are paranoid.

  • husein11

    Joe, why are you writing under the name geo1671? Because you’ve used up Annonymous? We know. That is all you write about. It’s those neocons aka jews who are the root of all evil.

  • stuartzechman

    Perhaps, Stuart, you are getting the words “private” and “secret” confused.
    .
    I see. Perhaps I am. Let’s examine this.
    .
    I asked:
    .
    Or, if you know about them, how exactly could they be private, Joe Klein?
    .
    I’m using “private” in the sense of what is “intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class….”
    .
    If Joe knows about these purportedly private Iranian diplomatic attempts, then obviously one side of the communications –presumably not the Iranian side– may not view these as private, correct?
    .
    I don’t think that I’m unaware of the difference between secrets, which either are or are not objectively “secret,” i.e. information known by parties other than the intended, and “private communications,” which can be totally divulged, and yet still “private,” because the intent of one or both parties has not changed.
    .
    It’s that I’m speaking to the latter, the divulging of “private” communications to Joe, if such a thing has occurred. More precisely, I’m asking him how exactly, if the Administration is divulging these Iranian attempts at pre-negotiation diplomacy, can these communications continue to be private.
    .
    The implications of the Administration divulging to Joe Klein what the Iranians apparently intend as private diplomatic channels –if we are to believe this has occurred– are what I meant to broach from that question.
    .
    If Joe really is telling us what the Administration is willing to reveal about what the Iranians intend to be secret nuclear negotiations overtures, then it probably calls into question either the judgment of the Administration, or the veracity of Joe’s claims.

  • stuartzechman

    Please don’t feel as if this is meant in any antagonistic way because of our prior disagreements, but:
    .
    Truly, an insane analysis.
    .
    How so?
    .
    Why so you think that this conjecture is beyond reason?

  • shepherdwong

    “Truly, an insane analysis. You are paranoid.”
    .
    I’m with Stuart. That was a near perfect description of Obama’s handling of the public option. There’s no doubt that he was being duplicitous when he kept pretending that he intended for it to be in the final reform measure (he had already negotiated it away with big Pharma), filibusters and Blue Dog Dems notwithstanding. You can choose to believe that Obama is always being sincere but there’s nothing more “sane” about that belief, than believing otherwise. At this point, I’d say quite the reverse.

  • stmichaeltraveler

    Joe Klein, let us walk through this together:
    I for one, preach for a world without any nuclear bombs. I have a little time to think about the illusions of Dr. Charles Krauthammer. He celebrates when Israel kills Palestinians, because he admires all the things Israel does. Let us get back to the point of pushing Iran into the corner, making them bleed until they bend to our vision for the Middle East; The USA Interests in the Middle East: Iran
    http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/the-usa-interests-in-the-middle-east-iran/
    Joe Klein, you often make a lot of sense to me. But on this issue, let me walk through this differently.
    Why are we threatened by a nuclear Iran? What are we talking about? Please get a cup of coffee and join me in the Logic Room.
    Fact 1: Iran is a nuclear state, but not a nuclear bomb state like the State of Israel, then Iran is a threat to Israel. Israel has 200 nuclear bombs. Iran has zero.
    However, many nations including Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Iran are among the many nuclear states…NOT a Nuclear Bomb State. All these nuclear states have active nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. they are able to produce fuel for nuclear power reactor for generation of electricity.
    Fact 2: The following states are nuclear bomb states: USA, Russia, England, France, China, Pakistan and India and Israel. The North Korea tested a very crude bomb a year ago, but she is incapable to deliver it as nuclear bomb either by plane or rocket.
    Fact 3: Israel has 3 nuclear submarines, donated by Germany, capable to carry nuclear bombs. USA has provided Israel planes which are capable to carry nuclear bombs. Israel has nuclear bombs.
    What is wrong with us? Krauthammer advocated black is white and good is bad: Israel an aggressive state who has attacked her neighbors and occupied their territories is good! Why does Israel feel threatened by Iran? US Secretary of State Clinton boldly announced, to appease the AIPAC crowd, that USA will nuclear bomb Iran into oblivion if she attacks Israel? USA already has been treating Israel as an honorary member of the Common Wealth of the United States.
    A common explanation often offered has been psychological syndrome. A cure for this behavior cannot be another war instigated on behalf of Israel. Israel had attacked Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. We have sacrificed the blood of our young people on behest of Israel in Iraq; now Charles Krauthammer is instigating once more, sacrifice more and attack Iran. Where is the sanity in the political world? We had to borrow money from China and many other nations to cover the cost of our war in Iraq. Who is going to pay for another war lasting for many years and sacrificing millions of innocent young and old people both in Iran, USA and the region? Are we crazy? I have to think about all the good things that we have to do for our people in this nation.
    I am sorry, after a cup of coffee, the black is black, and God is good. Although, Iranian government has long way to go on the road toward democracy and separation of religions and the state, but Iran is not a villain.

  • stmichaeltraveler

    Please allow me to correct myself in the above comment. I had inadvertently dropped a very important word “not” in my ‘Fact 1″ statement.

    Fact 1: Iran is a nuclear state, but not a nuclear bomb state like the State of Israel; then Iran is NOT a threat to Israel. Israel has 200 nuclear bombs. Iran has zero.

  • apr2563

    It is interesting that the reactionary right on this site have no knowledge of history.
    .
    From the mid-50s to the early 60s, Americans were into building bomb shelters. My father-in-law built a root cellar that doubled as a bomb shelter. If you frequented any large city, you would find designated bomb shelters everywhere. In school we did the old duck and cover drills. I used to have nightmares about seeing the flash and not being able to get home to my parents.
    .
    What caused us to be so fearful? The constant drumbeat of the Communist threat mainly coming from right wing Republicans and acquiested to by weak Democrats.
    .
    I am happy to report my generation survived the threat of the bomb and the onset of Rock and Roll, the Communist Warren Court, and integration. The far right was wrong on all accounts.

  • grape_crush

    Let’s examine this.
    .
    I think you are being nitpicky about your ‘privates’, but whatever.
    .
    If Joe knows about these purportedly private Iranian diplomatic attempts, then obviously one side of the communications –presumably not the Iranian side– may not view these as private, correct?
    .
    If I know that you communicate with other people that you work with, I know that you are having private communications, Stuart…I can even know the nature of the communications you are having (they are related to work), and they would still be private. If I knew the content of those communications, then you could presume that they were not private.
    .
    Put into context, I’m sure that both parties expect that people know that there are discussions going on through multiple channels with regards to Iranian sanctions, their nuclear program, et cetera.
    .
    More precisely, I’m asking him how exactly, if the Administration is divulging these Iranian attempts at pre-negotiation diplomacy, can these communications continue to be private.
    .
    Do you know anything about those communications, other than Joe saying that he’s confirmed that they are going on?
    .
    The implications of the Administration divulging to Joe Klein what the Iranians apparently intend as private diplomatic channels –if we are to believe this has occurred– are what I meant to broach from that question.
    .
    The implications are that Joe’s source(s) decided to share that tidbit to either highlight news of progress or to – through Joe – encourage more non-formal communications of that type. Or both….Maybe other reasons as well. Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing what y’all think the other possible motivations are the Administration would have for letting the (nonexistent) cat out of the (nonexistent) bag.
    .
    As for whether or not they actually occurred, you’ll either have to find out for yourself or extend trust to Joe that he’s done the work of finding out.
    .
    …it probably calls into question either the judgment of the Administration, or the veracity of Joe’s claims.
    .
    So…a little bird tells Joe that talks are ongoing through multiple channels – formal/informal, private/public – and either Joe’s not being honest or someone in the Administration is being incredibly, stupidly loose-lipped?
    .
    All based on an interpretation of a single word.

  • stuartzechman

    LOL
    .
    I’d be interested in hearing what y’all think the other possible motivations are the Administration would have for letting the (nonexistent) cat out of the (nonexistent) bag.
    .
    No offense intended, but I do not believe you.
    .
    I do not believe for a single second that you would be interested in hearing such a thing.
    .
    Nobody in their right mind would be, at this point.
    .
    LOL
    .
    Nobody could possibly be interested in reading what I think that the other possible motivations are with respect to the Administration, nonexistent cats and nonexistent bags.
    .
    Here’s what we’re both really interested in:
    .

  • swissArmyBrainBETA

    because iran doesn’t have a bomb, they’re not a threat to israel??? maybe you hadn’t heard, but that’s what they’re on their way to getting. its obviously about keeping them from BECOMING a nuclear threat. never thought i’d have to explain that. Iran, consistent sponsor of terrorism and destabilizing force in the region, not having nuclear bombs is that ignorant and uncaring vision we have for which Iran “bleeds”.
    .
    hint: logic isn’t a room you step into

  • emsnews

    The US has traded our trade deficit for diplomatic support of crushing Iran’s attempt to be like Israel and the US: using a nuclear arsenal as protection from invasions. Iran has been attacked in the recent past by Iraq, for example.

    Nuclear arms are kept by all the great powers because it gives them great power. We don’t want nations we plan to control or attack to also have nukes. So we disarm them like we disarmed Iraq and then attacked.

    China and Russia went very reluctantly along with this embargo of Iran but only to protect trade surpluses with Europe and America. We need to stop our trade deficit this should be #1. Instead, we told the Chinese they can continue it so long as they let us disarm Iran.

    China is reviewing their cooperation with us in this matter after we sent our navy to the South China Sea to back Vietnam’s claims for a group of islands.

  • grape_crush

    I do not believe for a single second that you would be interested in hearing such a thing.
    .
    I guess that’s your perogative, to choose what you do and don’t believe.
    .
    Nobody in their right mind would be, at this point.
    .
    So, you’re not gonna share your thoughts on what the motivations are behind the Administration’s ‘slip’ in telling that formal and informal talks with Iran are ongoing, correct?
    .
    You’ll just intimate that there is something dark and devious going on and run away when asked to elaborate. Nice move.
    .
    Nobody could possibly be interested in reading what I think that the other possible motivations are…
    .
    Well, I was…unless you were going to be excessively longwinded.
    .
    Here’s what we’re both really interested in…
    .
    Amusing entertainment? If that’s the reason you’re here, I’ll just remember not to take whatever you’re posting seriously.

  • stuartzechman

    Come on, you know that this was getting tedious and semantic.
    .
    The basic point I made was “How does Joe Klein know about private Iranian communications, and what does that knowledge mean for their substantive importance vs their public relations value, if they exist?”
    .
    What’s wrong with you?
    .
    I’m not “running away,” I think that the tone of this is getting silly. I think I’ve contributed to that silliness as much as anyone on this thread, probably when I bothered to detail an answer to the tangential semantic argument.
    .
    But now it’s getting silly and cranky, with your claims that I’m intimating “dark and mysterious” things in Glenn Beck-fashion, my cowardice in the face pure examination such as yours, and then the threat of not taking “whatever you post seriously.”
    .
    Don’t take me seriously again, if you don’t feel like it. Don’t take my posting of the humorous video as a way to lighten the tedium. Take it all the wrong way, argument, sentiment, good faith –all of it. That’s your prerogative, of course.
    .
    If this is your way of winning an argument, if you can say to yourself “Well, he ran away, so there,” and be irritated and yet satisfied, then that’s not good, grape_crush.
    .
    We’re about more than arguments in here, I think.

  • stuartzechman

    You know what?
    .
    I am going to come back in a while, because it might just be that I have failed to communicate the point of asking Joe Klein how he knows about extremely sensitive Iranian pre-negotiations with respect to their nuclear program.
    .
    I am going to go out and get some coffee with @lovely_bride , and then I will return to do so, hopefully in more clear fashion.
    .
    Thanks for your patience.

  • edismeiamhe

    You say Charles Krauthammer denigrated the patient and wise actions of Obama and his clan.

    Joe, get your head screwed on straight. Nothing the Obama administration has done or will do has been wise and patient…its all been for votes.

    Obama, with his Messiah Complex, has thought he could out talk that maniac leading Iran…it will never happen, and the nut has been leading Obama around by his nose, laughing all the time.

    It has been obvious for some time, that we and/or Israel will have to take out Iran’s Atomic bomb making capability by force of arms, not Obama’s force of words.

    Other than that Joe, Charles Krauthammer has more brains and practical sense than Obama and his whole tribe of lefty libby appointees.

    Ed. Ford

    778 Knolls Landing Dr.
    Milford, MI 48381

    248-0860-5351

  • 53_3

    grape:
    edit: “let themselves/get” should be “let themselves be/get”
    .
    me:
    We have to, in this particular case, depend on Joe to avoid being snookered.
    .
    grape:
    And that’s the major point in all of this: credibility. A journalist without credible sources ends up without credibility themselves…and if an audience lacks faith/trust in the journalist, the only point in employing that person is to get page hits from people calling him a douchebag.
    .
    I agree there is always a question of credibility when you have unnamed sources. This is why I’m not opposing SZ’s commentary, but just his contention that it is the only thing to draw from it. Due to the sensitivity and stakes (see below), I think that shielding sources can’t be avoided.
    .
    Doing so would damage his access to both administration and other ME sources. As a journalist, that’s the kiss of death – especially if your niche is the ME.
    .
    I think it depends on your POV of just how credible Joe is, and in matters of ME issues, I feel he is very credible, therefore, when he does not identify his sources, I conclude there are legitimate reasons for it, and that his portrayal is accurate.
    .
    I have to walk back the comment that he marked the commentary clearly, but I’m still not bothered, because of his history on the ME, and the reliability of his content in the past.
    .
    The spin I can separate.
    .
    As for being able to truly tell whether he’s being used by his sources, it depends on his intelligence on his end of things. There is no way for me to know that, if these ‘private’ comms don’t bear fruit, whether he was just making it up from wild humor or he in fact has reliable unnamed sources.
    .
    So what to do?
    .
    Look at his past character (already addressed) and the surrounding geopolitics:
    1. Iran must save face (I’m of the opinion that any way out must include this)
    2. These contacts are highly sensitive and by their nature, below-the-horizon
    3. The US must save face (see 1)
    4. There is a lot at stake
    5. There is a tightrope act between Israel and the Muslim states that must be played.
    .
    So essentially I agree with you grape on how credibility functions, but the difference is that I’m not quite as critical of Joe.
    .
    The last item, about whether he’s only good for the hits, well, Joe is a journalist. In this day and age, controversy sells and common sense does not. So what to do?
    .
    Set yourself up as a lightning rod for the crackhead neocons and let the money and the hits flow. It’s safe, it doesn’t compromise his integrity because all he has to do is push back against nonsense. I’d agree with you here that he is availing himself of this to further his cause – and Time, Inc.
    .
    me:
    I’d bet that the way it’s written, Joe won’t suffer if Iran back out of back channel comm over it.
    .
    grape:
    That sounds like lesson one in “how to maintain your credibility even when you’re frequently wrong”.
    .
    This is a matter of one’s POV over whether one likes what Joe is doing or not. I don’t agree with this, because I think he’s one of the best when it comes to the ME.
    .
    But, like I said, that’s only my opinion of him…

  • grape_crush

    Come on, you know that this was getting tedious and semantic.
    .
    ‘This was getting’ or ‘this started out as’?
    .
    “How does Joe Klein know about private Iranian communications, and what does that knowledge mean for their substantive importance vs their public relations value, if they exist?”
    .
    1) Joe has sources.
    2) Joe’s third paragraph his ideas regarding the substantive import.
    3) I’ve offered speculation as to the PR value. I’ve also stated that it would be interesting to hear other ideas, like the ones you’ve offered previously:

    What if his DOS contact(s) are telling Joe all about these “private” “feelers” precisely so that he will trumpet their “success” with respect to the policy?
    .
    What if it’s not made up per se, but that there’s serial exaggeration, so that the Administration is put in the best light?

    What’s wrong with you?
    .
    I’m tired of people pulling Peggy Noonans, i.e. pulling some unverifiable negative insinuation out of their nether regions because they have some axe to grind.
    .
    But now it’s getting silly and cranky…
    .
    And here I thought we all were having a good discussion regarding anonymous sourcing and its practical effects on the public’s perception of an issue.
    .
    …with your claims that I’m intimating “dark and mysterious” things…
    .
    Okay, how else should the “What If” comments you made (excerpted above) be taken? I mean, you’re not into Glenn Beck territory yet, but how should that be taken?
    .
    …my cowardice in the face pure examination such as yours and then the threat of not taking “whatever you post seriously.”
    .
    Please understand; I’m not trying to offend you, only to make a point – my axe, grinded every so often over the use of manufactured controversy.
    .
    Don’t take me seriously again…
    .
    Keep going down the Firebagger route, and it will be hard to.
    .
    If this is your way of winning an argument…
    .
    This was a debate, but it’s starting to feel more like an intervention. I’ve seen too many otherwise interesting commenters go down the conspiratorial rabbit hole because they were peeved about something…Hate to have that happen to you as well.
    .
    If you can say to yourself …
    .
    I didn’t think this was about scoring points.

  • grape_crush

    Due to the sensitivity and stakes (see below), I think that shielding sources can’t be avoided.
    .
    Neither do I. Reporting on some of the things Joe does would require keeping things on the down-low. You can only look at past performance to indicate if there’s any issue with a journo’s credibility. Problem is – as Stuart kinda points out – is that we can’t be sure of a source’s motivation for sharing info with a journalist when we have no idea of who the source is…
    .
    That’s probably where the whole credibility thing comes into play.
    .
    So essentially I agree with you grape on how credibility functions, but the difference is that I’m not quite as critical of Joe.
    .
    Funny; I seem to find myself at the midpoint between you and Stuart when it comes to Klein’s reporting. When it comes to his ME reporting, he’s good. His analysis tends to parallel whatever the current Beltway wisdom, however, which isn’t always wise…still, if we’re talking about credibility, Klein is head-and-shoulders above, say, Charles Krauthammer. To me, at least.
    .
    The last item, about whether he’s only good for the hits, well, Joe is a journalist. In this day and age, controversy sells and common sense does not. So what to do?
    .
    Oh; I wasn’t talking about Joe or anyone in particular; sorry for not being clear about that…more like, “a discredited journo’s is only useful for getting page hits by being outrageous.”
    .
    This is a matter of one’s POV over whether one likes what Joe is doing or not.
    .
    I dunno…Reading any column that is written in a way so that the author can walk back what they (might/might not) say…
    .
    I don’t agree with this, because I think he’s one of the best when it comes to the ME.
    .
    Joe’s one of the better ones, yes.

  • stuartzechman

    grape_crush:
    .
    Keep going down the Firebagger route, and it will be hard to.
    .
    Well, here I am again, and…wow, that’s offensive.
    .
    Keep going down the name-calling route, and it will be hard to take what you say seriously, as well.
    .
    Here, read this before you use words that you don’t apparently understand (like “Firebagger”):
    .
    http://www.ianwelsh.net/netroots-schizo/
    .
    OK, back again? Ready to have an informative, sourced discussion?
    .
    ‘This was getting’ or ‘this started out as’?
    .
    This started out as a substantive question regarding the sourcing of Joe Klein’s post. Someone decided to make it about the meaning of the words “private” and “secret,” and I made the mistake of allowing myself to digress in that direction.
    .
    1) Joe has sources.
    .
    Such as?
    .
    The same “sources” that provided such great information on FISA reform?
    .
    I don’t see any sources for any of his assertions, not one.
    .
    1) “The sanctions are working; they’re having a major impact on the Iranian economy.
    .
    Are they? How does Joe know that? What are his sources for that information? He doesn’t say.
    .
    Here’s what one guy says:

    TEHRAN, July 28 (Xinhua) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the sanctions against Iran over its sensitive nuclear program will have no impact on the country, local satellite Press TV reported.
    .
    “We do not welcome sanctions but we declare that the Iranian nation has mounted its efforts” to overcome the sanctions, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
    .
    He advised the foreign companies to abandon the imposed sanctions in dealing with Iran, otherwise “they will soon lose markets in other countries as well as Iran” according to the report.
    .
    Ahmadinejad made the remarks at the inaugural ceremony of two projects in the southern Iranian gas-rich zone of Assalouyeh in Bushehr province.

    Then there’s Wikipedia:

    According to a study by Akbar E. Torbat, “overall, the sanctions’ economic effect” on Iran “has been significant, while its political effect has been minimal.”[17]
    .
    In 2009, there was discussion in the U.S. of implementing “crippling sanctions” against Iran, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, “if diplomatic overture did not show signs of success by the autumn”. Professor Hamid Dabashi, of Columbia University, said in August 2009 that this was likely to bring “catastrophic humanitarian consequences”, while enriching and strengthening the “security and military apparatus” of “the Pasdaran and the Basij,” and having absolutely no support from “any major or even minor opposition leader” in Iran.[19] According to Bloomberg News, Boeing and Exxon have said that new Iran sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports.[20]
    .
    It has also been argued the sanctions have had the counter effect of protecting Iran in some ways, for example the 2007 imposition of US sanctions against Iranian financial institutions to a high degree made Iran immune to the then emerging global recession.[21]

    We inoculated the Iranian banking system against our meltdown.
    .
    Well, that’s certainly having some kind of effect. Does Joe know about this? He doesn’t say.
    .
    2) “The powerful bazaari community has been shocked not just by the universal support for the sanctions, but also by their comprehensive nature.
    .
    Really? How does Joe know what goes on in the minds of “powerful bazaari community?” How does he know what part of the sanction regime shocks which part of which community? He doesn’t say.
    .
    3) “Banks that have done business with Iran in the past are refusing to do so now because the UN sanctions–that’s right, those “weak” UN sanctions–target them as well.
    .
    Which banks?
    .
    Here’s another columnist in the Cleveland Plain Dealer/LA Times, who, unlike Joe, does provide sources, making the opposite claim:

    Germany must change for EU sanctions on Iran to have bite: Heather Robinson
    .
    Published: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 3:00 AM
    .
    Foreign ministers of European Union member states were meeting in Brussels on Monday to finalize new sanctions against Iran.
    .
    It is no mystery why Germany would wish to keep Iran’s banks going strong: They provide big business for Germany. A study recently released by former U.S. Treasury Department analyst Avi Jorisch of Iran’s banking sector found that five German banks continue to do business with Iranian groups banned by U.N. Security Council sanctions. And as of June 30, four major Iranian banks, under either U.N. Security Council or U.S. Treasury sanctions, are still active in Germany.

    So, again, which banks, at what impact? How does Joe know? He doesn’t say.
    .
    After a number of significant, yet unsourced claims, Joe goes for the kicker:
    .
    4) “As a result, the Administration has been receiving all sorts of feelers–public and, for the first time, private–from the Iranians about resuming the negotiations on the nuclear program.
    .
    As a direct result of this program? How does Joe know that? What are his sources?
    .
    Let’s deal with the public “feelers” first.

    Iran ready to resolve dispute over nuclear program, with conditions
    .
    By the CNN Wire Staff
    .
    July 28, 2010 2:41 a.m. EDT
    .
    CNN) — Iran is ready for “effective cooperation” to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with state media.
    .
    “We said that we will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions,” Ahmadinejad told Press TV on Monday. “One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well.”
    .
    The P5+1 consists of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom — and Germany.
    .
    The Iranian leader said the conditions for talks include the P5+1 members announcing their positions on Israel having nuclear weapons. Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied that it has a nuclear weapons program.

    Wow, that’s some “feeler.” Make the Western world –presumably the United States, as well– acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program.
    .
    Sounds like they’re really ready to resolve the nuclear question, doesn’t it? Just have a policy on a nuclear program Israel and the US won’t admit to, and they’re ready to “resolve the dispute.” Oh, and one more thing:

    Iran has rebuffed international demands that it halt its uranium enrichment program, insisting that it wants the nuclear fuel for peaceful uses. In low concentrations, enriched uranium can be used to fuel civilian power plants — but in extremely high concentrations, it can be used to produce a nuclear bomb.
    .
    Iran announced in February that it wanted to produce enriched uranium at a 20 percent concentration for use in a medical research reactor.

    All Joe mentions is the the 20% deal? Does he know about the entire speech? He doesn’t say.
    .
    OK, now. Did you really read all of that?
    .
    Did you go back and Google the articles which I’ve quoted?
    .
    Did you make that effort, or are you still in argument mode, still predicting that I’m making crap up out of nothing with which to criticize Joe for praising Obama?
    .
    Here’s Chief Firebagger Leon Panetta disputing Joe’s claims:

    CIA Director Leon Panetta said in a recent TV interview,
    .

    I think the sanctions will have some impact…. Will it deter [Iran] from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not.

    So now we come to the issue I first raised at the top of the thread, the “private feelers” Joe relies upon for the imprimatur of veracity, the ones we can’t look up and verify, the ones he doesn’t allow us to check for ourselves.
    .
    There’s a reason why the papers make their reporters say “government officials, who insisted on anonymity said Iran had reached out privately,” instead of merely asserting “Iran reached out privately.” The idea behind that rule is that we should know at least some information about the people who make unverifiable claims, so that we can at least contemplate their motives.
    .
    It doesn’t mean we’re assigning “dark and mysterious” conspiracies to people who make claims, it’s just good sense to treat “The oil spill is not as bad as was previously thought” differently in our minds from “The oil spill is not as bad as was previously thought, said a BP executive who is familiar with the incident.
    .
    If a government official tells Joe about private meetings with the Iranians in which they honestly desire negotiations, depending on the source or the circumstance, it could be a case in which an Administration-friendly columnist is given a rosy picture to support a “sanctions are working” public narrative. That’s complete conjecture, but in the absence of any information whatsoever on the source, it’s not unreasonable to raise the question. If this were the Bush Administration talking about progress with the Iraqi Parliament, and the source were Karl Rove, wouldn’t you want to know that? Or is that fundamentally different, because nobody in the Obama Administration could ever be like the prior folks in the White House?
    .
    Do you see now why “Joe has sources” is inadequate?
    .
    2) Joe’s third paragraph his ideas regarding the substantive import.
    .
    Yes. He both builds a case that the sanctions are beginning to work, and tears them down again, because he then lays out Administration conditions for negotiations. It’s both encouraging, but not, because they have been known to stall. They’re sending feelers, but the IEAE that they routinely reject needs to be more involved. They sent a letter, but…who knows.
    .
    3) I’ve offered speculation as to the PR value. I’ve also stated that it would be interesting to hear other ideas, like the ones you’ve offered previously:
    .
    It’s not that I have a terribly sophisticated idea of the PR value of the Administration being able to refute critics –the only critics they’re acknowledge– like Krauthammer.
    .
    I’m tired of people pulling Peggy Noonans, i.e. pulling some unverifiable negative insinuation out of their nether regions because they have some axe to grind.
    .
    Be tired all you want, but don’t put my criticism in the same category as Peggy Noonans. That’s offensive and absurd. I’m not the one pulling claims out of my ass, these columnists –Klein and Krauthammer– are.
    .
    This is a particularly Noonan-esque claim:
    .
    As it happens, that diplomacy–a real achievement, by the way–seems to be having an impact. Who knows? It might even work.
    .
    Given that nothing has actually happened yet, it’s just as worthless as Krauthammer’s take. It’s a “glass half full” claim. The reality-based community rejected that happy-talk from Bush, and now we need to consistently apply that standard to Obama, or Clinton, or Gingrich, or whoever is in office.
    .
    Okay, how else should the “What If” comments you made (excerpted above) be taken? I mean, you’re not into Glenn Beck territory yet, but how should that be taken?
    .
    It should be taken that the Administration probably hasn’t leaked important, new information about Iranian nuclear pre-negotiation diplomatic communiques to Joe. If they have, then that’s probably a very bad idea, since Joe is now refuting Krauthammer by insinuating them. It’s not “Glenn Beck territory,” unless you think that leaking Valerie Plame’s name is Glenn Beck conspiracy-land, too.
    .
    Please understand; I’m not trying to offend you, only to make a point – my axe, grinded every so often over the use of manufactured controversy.
    .
    Thank you, perhaps if you had led with this, I would have been less likely to have taken your comments the wrong way. I get your axe, manufactured controversy is a great axe to grind, it’s bad for our country, and for the press corps. The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation “controversy” is a manufactured controversy.
    .
    The efficacy of the sanctions regime, and the spin interested parties are putting on events are not a manufactured controversy.
    .
    This was a debate, but it’s starting to feel more like an intervention. I’ve seen too many otherwise interesting commenters go down the conspiratorial rabbit hole because they were peeved about something…Hate to have that happen to you as well.
    .
    Skepticism over claims, both of paid opinion columnists and government officials, is a rational response to the situation in which we find ourselves, I believe.
    .
    I don’t think that it’s too far down the rabbit hole to conjecture about leaks and their purposes, either, especially when the journalist in question doesn’t even provide the least bit of sourcing for his claims.
    .
    It’s funny, I agree with you in spirit. I have also seen many folks rush to assign motives of all kinds to events, without consciously going from A to B. It’s bad for the reality-based community, I am with you 100%.
    .
    I didn’t think this was about scoring points.
    .
    It isn’t. Look, I’m sorry about the video, it really was meant in the best spirit of what I thought was a “let’s agree to disagree.”
    .
    Thanks for reading this far and considering all of these points, grape_crush, we are both here to make the place –and journalism– better.

  • grape_crush

    Well, here I am again, and…wow, that’s offensive.
    .
    I’ll disregard this most of this beginning part – there was no name-calling, however – in light of the of the end of your comment. I just hope that you didn’t spend too much time away from your life writing all this.
    .
    Such as?…I don’t see any sources…How does Joe know that? What are his sources for that information? He doesn’t say….He doesn’t say. Which banks? How does Joe know? He doesn’t say…How does Joe know that? What are his sources?…Does he know about the entire speech? He doesn’t say.
    .
    You’re not going to know who his sources are, see Klein’s homework, or see an incredibly detailed, nuanced account of the current state of Iran-US negotiations outside of a book. We are limited to the reliability of the person writing the post and our own knowledge of whatever the issue is. I understand that anonymous sourcing and indirect knowledge have their downsides, but what else are we left with? No information? Information from only publicly-known sources? Discovering everything ourselves, individually?
    .
    It’s really kind of a bind, isn’t it?
    .
    OK, now. Did you really read all of that?
    .
    Yep. You do know about the studies Jakob Nielsen’s done over the years about the degradation of a person’s reading speed when reading from an electronic device like a monitor, yes?
    .
    Did you go back and Google the articles which I’ve quoted?
    .
    Nope. You have established enough cred (with me, at least) based on your prior efforts that I don’t feel the need to Google. However, I do question whether some of your conclusions are bourne out by what you’ve cited.
    .
    …still predicting that I’m making crap up out of nothing with which to criticize Joe for praising Obama?
    .
    Depends on when you researched all those items. Was it before or after you stated your “What Ifs”?
    .
    If a government official tells Joe about private meetings…
    .
    Stop right there. Is that official from Iran or the US – or even elsewhere? The passage in question:

    …the Administration has been receiving all sorts of feelers–public and, for the first time, private–from the Iranians about…

    That’s complete conjecture, but in the absence of any information whatsoever on the source, it’s not unreasonable to raise the question.
    .
    But you filled in the absence yourself and then raised the question, Stuart. There’s not enough information here for responsible speculation.
    .
    Do you understand why I made the Noonan reference?
    .
    Do you see now why “Joe has sources” is inadequate?
    .
    It’s inadequate, but in this instance, it’s all we have…unlike the buildup to the Iraq invasion and occupation, where the dissenting voices were shouted down. I don’t see anyone disputing whether or not these communications were taking place, outside of some speculation in this thread.
    .
    …he then lays out Administration conditions for negotiations…
    .
    Then Joe has chosen some odd phrasing:

    I’d hope that the Obama Administration would insist on a concession–a meaningful sign of good faith from the Iranians…

    That seems to indicate that he has no idea of the content of the communications, only his hopes for what is being discussed.
    .
    I’m not the one pulling claims out of my ass, these columnists –Klein and Krauthammer– are.
    .
    You’ve claimed that the Administration has leaked to Klein and that Klein has layed out the Administration’s conditions for negotiation. Is that based on anything that Joe has written in this post, or is it your own interpretation of what he’s written?
    .
    The reality-based community rejected that happy-talk from Bush, and now we need to consistently apply that standard to Obama, or Clinton, or Gingrich, or whoever is in office.
    .
    No argument with that. It’s like reading a horoscope, in that it’s so generally written that it could mean anything.
    .
    It should be taken that the Administration…
    .
    Er, no…not the point I was getting at…back to grinding my ax over manufactured controversy: Overinterpreting what someone says in order to offer up speculation (that usually seems to fall in line with whatever biases one has) occurs far too frequently in our (not ‘our’, as in you and I, Stuart) news and national debate.
    .
    …the spin interested parties are putting on events are not a manufactured controversy.
    .
    But your speculation on the matter, based on assumption and coupled with some articles that seem to support your speculaton, do qualify as such.
    .
    Skepticism over claims…is a rational response to the situation in which we find ourselves, I believe.
    .
    Skepticism, yes. I’m not sure about speculation based on observations that may or may not be accurate, ‘tho.
    .
    I don’t think that it’s too far down the rabbit hole to conjecture about leaks and their purposes, either…
    .
    Now it’s my turn to agree with you..in spirit. The problem is when such conjecture leads to something like:

    I’m worried that this is another example of a disturbing pattern where Obama says he’s for something when it appears he can’t get it, only to backtrack when he can.

    We go from assumption to assumption-based speculation to some vague, ominous statement entered into the public consciousness.
    .
    Thank you for taking the time to consider this, Stuart.

  • grape_crush

    Well, damn…didn’t think to keep all that in the right thread. Apologies.

  • sri1ram

    Hmmm.. The difference between aggressive (later on helpless) posturing versus a long term diplomatic response. This is why this administration’s measured policies will worry Iran. They will be too smart to take the Obama team for granted again. It has normally been easy for Iran to split the International community and wait it out. (Hope the GOP and Nobamas out there are taking note and learning something here)
    Finally, people will take exception to the thoughts below.
    Is a nuclear Iran a game changer?
    Did anything change with India becoming nuclear or Pakistan getting the first Islamic bomb? Every nation out there were up in their feet protesting when India/Pak went officially nuclear. Iran is too smart to be suicidal. They already have enough leverage and potential in the mid-east to do a lot of mischief, agreed. The western argument that nukes will embolden them to actually do further mischief is idle conjuncture. Even without nukes, the US or the west simply cannot bomb Iran and expect it to remain silent, repercussions from Iran to AfPak is bound to be significant, as per a number of security analysts. My point is that nukes are not a big game-changer in geopolitics – just look at Pakistan today with drones trampling their sovereignty at will. US and the west have never preferred a thinking, calculating enemy (vis-a-vis pliant dictatorships, buy-able elites like Pakistan, Saudis etc.) and Iran is perceived to be a big danger if she ever gets nukes. But is Iran actually so much of an evil, unreasonable danger as compared to N. Korea or Pakistan or even China? I am thinking of US interests not Israel’s potential security headaches.

  • stuartzechman

    I appreciate the thorough response, but I believe that you’ve misunderstood a couple important points, and you’ve raised a couple of questions that demand examination.
    .
    The points start with how you’ve mixed up public knowledge, for which there should be explicit source citation in the form of links (because there can be), e.g. “Iranian ships are sitting at their docks because they international community is refusing to insure them.,” with leaked or discovered private information, such as Joe’s “private feelers.”
    .
    I am saying that the refusal to source claims with respect to public knowledge creates (or should create, if we do our jobs as engaged news consumers) credibility problems for the private knowledge.
    .
    Look at this treatment the NYTimes gave to Joe’s “Iranian ships are sitting at their docks” happy talk about the sanctions regime:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/middleeast/08sanctions.html
    .
    Web of Shell Companies Veils Trade by Iran’s Ships
    .
    But an examination shows how Iran has used a succession of stratagems — changing not just ships’ flags and names but their owners, operators and managers, too — to stay one step ahead of its pursuers. This cat-and-mouse game offers a case study in the difficulties of enforcing sanctions.

    “We are dealing with people who are as smart as we are, and of course they can read our list,” said Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury who oversees the sanctions effort and the blacklist of Irisl and its fleet.
    .
    That blacklist simply hasn’t kept up.

    .
    Trying to Keep Up
    .
    In recent months, advocacy groups like Iran Watch have raised questions about Irisl, particularly its practice of changing ship names. But The Times’s findings offer a considerably more extensive picture of the way Irisl has adapted to sanctions — one that goes well beyond the knowledge of even the Treasury Department.

    This isn’t some back-channel thing, publicly reported facts seem to contradict Joe’s assertions.
    .
    The need for accurate reporting with respect to claims made by “columnists,” i.e. “opinion writers” is a great part of this criticism, otherwise we have dueling Klein-Krauthammer claims. It’s bad for journalism and for public understanding.
    .
    That’s one of the points, that the criticism of this piece goes beyond the anonymous sourcing complaint. Although the initial comment focused on the “private,” the entire set of claims are dubious and unsourced, which sets up the declarations of private pre-negotiations missives as questionable.
    .
    Unfortunately, I am on the way to a martial arts anatomy class with @lovely_bride , so I will need to return much later to do so.

  • 53_3

    Me:
    “Due to the sensitivity and stakes (see below), I think that shielding sources can’t be avoided.”
    .
    Grape:
    Neither do I. Reporting … credibility. Problem is – as Stuart kinda points out – is that we can’t be sure of a source’s motivation for sharing info with a journalist when we have no idea of who the source is…
    .
    Which is why I didn’t reject SZ’s commentary out of hand, and mentioned that given the circumstances, we may never be able to know that – an – we can only rely on Joe’s experience and intuition to avoid being caught in manipulative activity by his sources.
    .
    I’m guessing, with his experience, he’s depending on at least some sources that he considers reliable, and who consider him trustworthy of their disclosures.
    .
    Me:
    “That’s probably where the whole credibility thing comes into play… but the difference is that I’m not quite as critical of Joe.”
    .
    Grape:
    “Funny; I seem to find myself at the midpoint between you and Stuart…his analysis tends to parallel whatever the current Beltway wisdom, however, which isn’t always wise…still, if we’re talking about credibility, Klein is head-and-shoulders above, say, Charles Krauthammer. To me, at least.”
    .
    I would have to say that I am more appreciative of Joe because of his change of heart over racial rhetoric a few years ago. I admit that that has nothing to do with his credentials however. He has changed his outlook and moved much more toward the center. He’s the kind of Republican I can like.
    .
    Thinking about it a little more, I’ve considered his “beltway wisdom” in the context of his station in ME affairs. I come up with this:
    .
    I wonder if maybe that is because it’s all about access? After all, he can venture only so far in any direction (save Israel and the Neocons) because he can irritate, but not seriously offend his sources’ bosses’ sensibilities. His Admin sources might fall silent if he puts Obama in a bind, the same with Iran, or any other of the nations in the ME.
    .
    Israel is a special case, there is a lot of background political stuff that allows him access to the more dovish segments and his stature as one of the premier Jewish reporters on ME affairs makes him a very iffy target for the right there. This gives him freedom to yoink noses and pull beards, because any attempts to blackball him there might backfire politically.

    Annelids have more credibility than Krauthammer…
    .
    Me:
    “The last item, about whether he’s only good for the hits, well, Joe is a journalist. In this day and age, controversy sells and common sense does not. So what to do?
    .
    Grape:
    Oh; I wasn’t talking about Joe or anyone in particular; sorry for not being clear about that…more like, “a discredited journo’s is only useful for getting page hits by being outrageous.”
    .
    Even if not discredited, Joe, I’m sure, does avail himself of the benefits of having the Frumbots swarm to the attack. It’s controversy, and hits do sell, which is Joe’s other job at Time, Inc.
    .
    I kinda treaded lightly, I know by experience that emails and blogs require care to avoid miscommunicating! I don’t think Joe is discredited and, it seems you don’t either, but FISA* does linger…
    .
    Me:
    “This is a matter of one’s POV over whether one likes what Joe is doing or not.”
    .
    Grape:
    “I dunno…Reading any column that is written in a way so that the author can walk back what they (might/might not) say…”
    .
    I think, given the possibility that these feelers might come to nothing, which happens a lot in the ME, that might actually be the best approach. He works a beat where there are no guarantees!

  • 53_3

    Grape:
    .
    My comments at 17 are a continuation of the discussion with you at 3.23

  • 53_3

    Grape:
    .
    My response to your comments at 3.23 is at comment 17.

  • stuartzechman

    OK, I’m back, and…I may just have to call it a thread.
    .
    I hope you understand, I’m beat.
    .
    Good night.

blog comments powered by Disqus