Well, that's not exactly news. But today's editorial on U.S. policy toward Iran shows how far to the left the paper has gone.
Not content to simply disagree with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the P-I seems upset to even hear Iran is a bad actor on the world stage. This shouldn't be such a shock. The Council on Foreign Relations - almost the definition of establishment thinking on foreign policy - decrees Iran a state sponsor of terror.
Given that the Revolutionary Guards are the regime's key enforcer it would be no surprise that the organization is involved in terrorist activity, thus making its labeling as a specific sponsor of terror a logical step. Even the about.com article on Iran as a state sponsor of terror includes prominent mention of the Revolutionary Guards.
The true irony is that the P-I's apparent disdain for any conflict with Iran ignores the power of the US Treasury Department as an effective foreign policy tool, thereby actually decreasing the chance of military confrontation.
The actual crux of the problem comes down to a simply understanding of foreign affairs. Diplomacy works when both sides are willing to negotiate in something close to good faith. The entire history of the Iranian regime in dealing with the West indicates that's not what they're interested in doing. Given that absence, shouldn't the P-I actually be cheering efforts to bring Iran in line with the wishes of the international community via the checkbook rather than guided missile?
Posted by Eric Earling at August 19, 2007 04:26 PM | Email This"The real Iranian threat against the Saudis materializes as follows:
1. Were the US led coalition to leave Iraq abruptly, Iranian forces -- via the help of their militias in Iraq -- will be at the borders with the Kingdom. Throughout the Gulf, Iran's Mullahs will be eyeing the Hijaz on the one hand and the oil rich provinces on the other hand.
2. Hezb'allah threatens the Lebanese Government, which is friendly to the Saudis. Hezb'allah, already training for subversion in Iraq, will become the main trainer of Shia radicals in the Eastern province of the Kingdom.
3. Finally Syria and Iran can send all sorts of Jihadis, including Sunnis, across Iraq's borders, almost in a pincer movement."
Posted by: John Bailo on August 19, 2007 05:57 PMHow, exactly, do the sources you cite show that the P-I disagrees with Obama and Clinton?
According to the editorial you cited, Obama thinks the U.S. should continue to arm Israel. Does today's P-I editorial say we shouldn't continue to arm Israel?
The P-I also says that Hillary Clinton thinks Iran is a threat to U.S. national security. I don't see anything in the P-I disputing this.
No, the P-I simply points out that "if Iran is, indeed, a danger to world security, an iota of diplomatic tact would go further than these bullying tactics." Disagree if you like, but that's hardly an extreme position.
Posted by: scottd on August 19, 2007 07:24 PMJust like you failed to substantiate your assertion that the P-I disagrees with the cited positions of Obama and Clinton, you also have offered no evidence that Obama or Clinton would disagree with the P-I's position that "an iota of diplomatic tact would go further than these bullying tactics." Therefore, it's impossible to conclude that the P-I is to the left of these candidates on this issue, and it's also impossible to conclude that these candidates are to the left of the center on this issue.
You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but your cited sources don't back it up.
My guess is that a preference for diplomacy over warmongering is a mainstream position, but that's just my opinion. We'll see in a little over a year.
Posted by: scottd on August 19, 2007 09:24 PMBased on your comment above I'm not sure that you'll see the differentiation unless Obama and Hillary clearly spelled it out for you. If you can't see the discomfit the P-I holds with all the candidates mentioned in the older editorial on Iran I don't know what to tell you. Notice neither Obama or Clinton have come out against the Revolutionary Guards twist, when in theory in would be an easy anti-Bush shot if they so desired.
As I said before, the point is the P-I thinks even those two are being too bellicose about Iran. I don't think they're even being bellicose at all. It just shows how far from center the P-I has gone.
Lastly, I have no interest in war mongering either. Military action against Iran is not a palatable choice for many reasons; truly an option of last resort. The financial sanctions the P-I appears to be quailing against by labeling the Revolutionary Guards thus are actually a part of the arsenal of diplomacy with which the P-I seems so enamored.
By eschewing financial sanctions against key bad actors in Iran, the P-I seems to indicate their idea of diplomacy is just polite talk across pretty tables. History shows that doesn't get anyone very far with regimes like Iran short of giving them whatever they want.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 19, 2007 10:15 PMYour grade in this debate just went down to "F"!!
Showing is always more persuaive than telling, and the knee-jerk ad hominem response is the weakest of all ! Kind of gives the impression you are just spouting off.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on August 20, 2007 12:23 AMDoc-T: I'm still laughing. You've defined the perspective that many of us rural folks have of Seattle's media and government officials.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 20, 2007 06:31 AM"NEAH BAY -- Christina Pendleton is an unlikely casualty of the Bush administration's war on terrorism. The Makah woman was romanced on her remote Pacific Northwest reservation by a Mexican drug dealer who fed her methamphetamine addiction and then peddled dope to her tribe."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/328272_fbinative20.html
Posted by: JDH on August 20, 2007 06:57 AM"McPeak has invested thousands of unpaid hours, living on disability paychecks"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328174_hempfest18.html
This is what I love about SP...I'm pointing out that Eric's citations don't support the argument he is making -- basically a critique of sloppy writing -- and danged if you don't go all Hitlery on me.
Where did you get the idea that diplomacy is only called for between parties who already trust each other, or are willing to negotiate in good faith? Maintaining communication with one's enemies is probably even more important. Tough talk is fine, but only based on the relative strength of one's hand and the likelihood such talk will lead to a desirable outcome. Usually the situation isn't so advantageous, so a more skillful dialogue is required where the aim is to show resolve without backing one's opponent into an unacceptable corner. That's what we call diplomacy. It might not be as gratifying as trash talking, but it's also not a weak tactic and often more effective. Until recently, it's been the policy of the U.S., and the world looked up to us because of it.
Posted by: scottd on August 20, 2007 08:03 AMBush cuts off the money and the first thing the NKs do is go cry to the Clintons about how tough the new guy is and that the Clintons should step in and give the NKs money again. After all, it was the Clintons that looked the other way before when the NKs were doing nukes and collecting billions in exchange for donations.
I don't know scottd, we tried it your way with Carter and Clinton and I don't like the results.
But scottd, from a nit-pickers standpoint, you were correct on Eric's citations, but as you know, it would be too hard to better substantiate. But, again, that really wasn't your point, was it?
You seem to think that you can talk to anybody and come to understanding that would avoid conflict. That is only true when you share the same value system. I am unconvinced that these people do not.
Posted by: REBEL on August 20, 2007 08:52 AM