Author: Scott H

From that same Monticello portico: a sale

Amid writings about Jefferson and Bush, a friend alerted me to a compelling essay in our local “The Hook” weekly paper — about another irony on the very portico where President Bush spoke. The essay’s author is David Ronka, a gifted guide at Monticello.
In his tours, “Professor” Ronka provides brilliant, well chosen phrases to describe the reasons why we still celebrate Jefferson. Yet David also helps us contemplate his unfinished work, the perplexing paradoxes of the human named Jefferson:

“For as this year’s honored guests are called one by one to the mansion’s West Portico to be welcomed into a future bright with America’s promise, I’ll be reminded of a starkly different event 181 years ago at that same portico.”

While “the sage” of Monticello was profoundly wise in many realms, personal finance was not one of his better suits. After he retired from public life, various schemes to make his estate prosperous, to train and emancipate his own enslaved community, foundered amid repeated economic downturns. Former Presidents then received no pensions, did no speaking tours, had no Presidential libraries. Jefferson knew before his death that he had become insolvent.

“Thus on a frigid January day in 1827, six months after his death, crowds of people flocked to the mountaintop from near and far, drawn by the prospect of purchasing something that had belonged to America’s third president and author of the Declaration of Independence.
On the auction block that day, and highlighted in large boldface on the bill of sale published in the local newspaper: 130 VALUABLE NEGROES, Thomas Jefferson’s slaves.”

Oh ironic wretched fate indeed, that the most valuable “asset” in Jefferson’s failed estate was human flesh. (See actual reproduction of the bill of sale)

“This Fourth of July, from Monticello’s parlor…. I’ll see the ghosts of those 130 men, women, and children huddled against the bitter cold of that distant January day, waiting for their names to be called, not to the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as Jefferson famously declared, but into an uncertain and foreboding future.”

Thank you David for the sobering reminders:

“The Fourth of July celebrates America’s birthday, but it also reminds us that there’s still work to be done in perfecting our Union. And that work demands nothing less than our persistent willingness to open our arms– and our hearts– to each other.
We owe that much to the men, women, and children who answered the auctioneer’s call at Monticello 181 years ago. We owe that much to the people we’ll welcome there as new American citizens this Fourth of July. And we owe that much to America’s Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the cause of the freedoms we enjoy today.”

Bush misquotes Jefferson

Stirred by President Bush’s actual comments at Monticello on July 4th, Ruhi Ramazani and I (sh) published a comment in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch: Bush’s War Betrays the Sage of Monticello’s Vision for Liberty.
As we suggested last week, President Bush’s decision to speak at Monticello, the first visit of his life, sought a Jeffersonian stamp of approval for his own foreign policy legacy. (Here’s the WhiteHouse link to the speech.)

Ironically, President Bush sought to don the Jefferson mantle by claiming that, “We honor Jefferson’s legacy by aiding the rise of liberty in lands that do not know the blessings of freedom. And on this Fourth of July, we pay tribute to the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America.”

As the often forgotten founder of the US Military Academy, Jefferson likely would not object to honoring a professional American military. Yet we also contend that Jefferson would have turned over in his grave at the thought that his beloved country had justified “a war of choice” and occupation in the name of promoting democracy.
Having recently been a Jefferson Fellow focused on Jefferson’s reflections on the Declaration of Independence, I was particularly startled when I heard President Bush misquote a 24 June 1826 Jefferson letter, written just before his death, to Robert Weightman. The full passage in the original reads:

May it be to the world what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self government

This is the same letter cited accurately last Monday by Bill Kristol in his New York Times column.
But President Bush’s speech tellingly deleted the clause referencing “monkish ignorance and superstition.”

This omission matters because the full quote reflects Jefferson’s long-held doubts about democracy taking root elsewhere. Unlike Bush, Jefferson believed that before democracy can flourish, citizens and their culture must be receptive to democratic principles, including the rule of law and respect for minority rights.

Our essay then highlights means Jefferson endorsed for exporting democratic ideals — leading by example, via information, and through education.
We close with a reference to a theme I wrote about here at jwn last year — about the simple, yet so often forgotten original purpose of the Declaration:

More than a listing of grievances and abstract principles, it was crafted to declare independence — to proclaim America’s determination before a “candid world” to govern itself.
As the world granted America that liberty to choose its own path, so too “The Sage of Monticello” would see wisdom in America granting other countries the same freedom

What a concept.

Bush at Monticello: The Irony

Dan Jordan, outgoing and venerated President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, is getting more “love” than usual this past week. Many were dismayed that Monticello, Jefferson’s historic home, had invited George Bush to speak at its annual naturalization ceremony on July 4th. Others were miffed that the Foundation “permitted” the audience to include “indecent” demonstrators who were less than impressed by the President. (See this link for debate within the local activist community on the propriety of protests.)
To clarify, the Foundation every year issues an invitation to the sitting President to speak at Monticello. This year, President Bush accepted the invitation.
Previously scheduled speaker Kenneth Burns deferred to the President. Burns would have been following last year’s outstanding speaker, actor Sam Waterson. I commented on Waterston’s magnificent “Commencement Speech for America” here.
As for the many hecklers in the audience, the Foundation released 1,000 or so free general audience tickets on Wednesday morning. To its credit, no attempt was made to restrict who could get those tickets. Early birds got those worms. How refreshing it was that the President encountered some “free speech,” unlike so many other venues where potential protesters are kept far, far away.
**********************
I too was moved to comment upon the profound irony of the spectacle — the 43rd President belatedly getting around to visiting with the 3rd President, known to many as the “author of America.” My commentary with Ruhi Ramazani was distributed via Agence Global. I can now post it here, with notes and links we couldn’t put into the original:
Bush’s Last Fourth
by Wm. Scott Harrop and R. K. Ramazani Released: 5 Jul 2008

Irony abounds in President George W. Bush’s decision to speak at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, on the last July 4th that he will occupy the Oval Office.
For it was Jefferson who wrote in America’s Declaration of Independence that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires” the colonies to set forth the reasons for their rebellion before a “candid world.” America’s founders agreed — international legitimacy mattered. Two hundred and thirty-two years later, the conscious disregard for the “opinions of mankind” has come to define the Bush presidency.

If that sounds a little strong, it’s calmer than an earlier draft, which wondered if Bush came seeking to wrap his foreign policies in the cover, the perceived legitimacy that speaking from Jefferson’s porch would afford to his controversial legacy.

In the Bush view, the world commonly reduced to being either “with us or against us.” His former press secretary Scott McClellan illustrates the problem in his recent book, What Happened. Lacking respect for international opinion, Bush created alliances with leaders of a “coalition of the willing,” not their citizens. Bush praised those leaders who stood with him for being “tough” and “strong” despite intense criticism from their own publics.
This disregard for the opinions of mankind yielded a bitter harvest. In the aftermath of 9/11, most of the world sympathized with America. But America’s reputation abroad plummeted since 2002, as documented by multiple international public opinion surveys.

Continue reading “Bush at Monticello: The Irony”

Whither US Public Diplomacy?

In writing on the symbolic irony in President Bush’s visit to Monticello, (above) I took note of James Glassman’s recent statement that “our mission is not to improve America’s standing in the world.” Glassman’s comment, as the new Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, deserves more context and question. Glassman was appearing on June 23rd, with Shibley Telhami, on the PBS NewsHour, responding to recent bashing of the American government’s al-Hura Arabic language broadcasting program. Criticisms had been particularly pointed on the CBS 60 Minutes program and in the Washington Post, with the most intense fury focusing on al-Hura broadcasting speeches by Hizbullah leader Nasrallah.
Glassman had tried to short-circuit Telhami’s contention that US broadcasting has so little to show for itself, if the money was wisely spent, or if it had any chance of improving world views of America. Thus Glassman’s statement that “improving America’s image was not its mission.”
But just what then is the mission of Public Diplomacy and its broadcasting board of governors? Glassman answered that,

“Our job is to be professional broadcasters, to show the world, to show people in places like Tibet, and in Burma, and Tajikistan what a free press is like and to tell them what’s happening in their own countries.”

This is difficult terrain, as within seconds, Glassman contends that broadcasting Hibzullah’s Nasrallah was a mistake, because he’s a terrorist. Yet were al-Hura to be a “free press” impressing “the other” with how free America’s media really is, then by Glassman’s guideline, it should be able to report Nasrallah’s comments. For better or worse, Nasrallah is a “happening” in Lebanon.
I have some empathy with Glassman. He follows Charlotte Beers, Karen Hughes, et. al. into a thankless, intensely controversial role. Critics, including those within the US government, commonly proclaim that its US policies, not the medium of broadcasting, that are to blame for poor perceptions of America in the world.
Yet if anything, Mr. Glassman, perhaps reflecting his recent roles at the American Enterprise Institute, has been quite enthusiastic about the role of public diplomacy in “winning” hearts and minds abroad – in itself. Indeed, Glassman in February 2005, defined public diplomacy as,

“the promotion of the national interest by informing, engaging and influencing people around the world. … Of course, policy counts most, and many foreigners simply disagree with our policies – in Iraq, on the environment, on trade. But we have a better chance of winning them over if we explain ourselves well.” (from 2/21/05 Scripps Howard News Service oped)

Glassman, as of 2005, was an enthusiastic proponent of US public diplomacy actively endeavoring to “influence” foreign publics – the “opinions of mankind.” His department’s own web site still quotes him as saying, “The task ahead…. [is to] engage in the most important ideological contest of our time – a contest that we will win.”
But when faced with the enormous difficulty of the task, we have the new Secretary declaring that, “our mission is not to improve America’s standing in the world.”
So which is it? To influence or not to influence; to engage or not; to “win” but “not improve America’s image?” Hopefully Mr. Glassman will help us untie the knot in the near future. Til we get that clarity, any readers want to take a crack at resolving this apparent tension? Am I being more dense than usual?
For discussion, two documents: First, a still excellent 2003 Harvard Review article by legendary US Ambassador Chris Ross, who offers “seven pillars of public diplomacy.” Much “wisdom” herein; Move over Lawrence. I especially think Mr. Jefferson would approve of Ross’s #7:

“The final pillar of public diplomacy recognizes that the United States must build the foundations of trust and mutual understanding through a genuine commitment to dialogue. We must listen to the world as well as speak to it. The failure to listen and to provide more avenues for dialogue will only strengthen the stereotype of the United States as arrogant, when, in fact, we are often only being inattentive.”

Secondly, consider the important 2003 Study, “Changing Minds: Winning Peace,” a report of the Congressional Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World. Chaired by another former Assistant Secretary of State, Edward Djerejian, the report helped lay the groundwork for dramatic increase in spending and reorganization of America’s “public diplomacy” efforts.
The report’s very title speaks of “changing minds” — presumably that would include improving America’s standing in the world. Members of the advisory group included Chris Ross, Shibley Telhami, and… James Glassman.

US Diplomats and Boumediene Case

I too am encouraged by the US Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush ruling that detainees held at Gunatanamo Bay are entitled to Habeas Corpus protection — the right to challenge their detention in a US Court. I also appreciate this LA Times analysis on the “internationalist” considerations that likely influenced the Boumediene majority. Yet I’ve also been perplexed by the fury of the dissents and the hyperbolic claim by presidential candidate John McCain that the ruling was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
Three complaints stand out: First, dissenting Justice Scalia darkly warns that the ruling will “almost certainly” result in more American being killed. Second, because the US is deemed to be at”war” with those who don’t respect our values, we should not extend such rights to them. Cast as an inhuman “enemy,” they only understand the “language of force.”
Third, the critics condemn the Court for subjecting our laws to the dictates of international opinions — to the norms recognized by the rest of the world. That’s “judicial cosmopolitanism;” it’s “too French.” Or worse, it’d be like Thomas Jefferson in the first sentence of the US Declaration of Independence waxing about “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
In researching case background (and hat tip to Helena for this resource) I came across a timeless and eloquent response to such concerns, in the form of a Friend of the Court filing, prepared last year by some of America’s best career diplomats. Endorsers include former US Ambassadors to Israel (and elsewhere) Sam Lewis, Thomas Pickering, and William (C) Harrop, as well as Bruce Laingen and the late William D. Rogers and our recently departed Charlottesville friend and mentor, David D. Newsom. (bless his memory)
Among their sage observations: (emphasis added):

If the mounting cost to American diplomatic interests is finally to be curbed, it is imperative, at minimum, to restore meaningful judicial review for prisoners at Guantanamo. Our nation cannot credibly champion the rule of law in the world, while being seen to disregard it in our own affairs….
[O]ur professional experience convinces us that American diplomatic credibility and effectiveness in many areas of international relations suffer greatly from the widely shared perception that, by denying prisoners at Guantanamo access to habeas corpus, our country has lost sight of its historic commitment to independent and effective judicial review of the lawfulness of detention…..
We have come to believe, in our representation of this country to other nations, that those nations are more willing to accept American leadership and counsel to the extent that they see us as true to the principle of freedom under the law. Indeed, the matter has rarely been better put than by President Bush in signing the Torture Victims Protection Act on March 12, 1992:

In this new era, in which countries throughout the world are turning to democratic institutions and the rule of law, we must maintain and strengthen our commitment to ensuring that they are respected everywhere….

(Perhaps this entire subject ought to be re-framed as, “Bush vs. Bush.”)

The admiration and respect for this nation abroad is a function of our own commitment to liberty under law. In this, we have led the world. The success of our interests in the wider arena turns importantly on the extent to which this nation is perceived as continuing to abide by these principles. Any hint that America is not all that it claims, or that it is prepared to ignore a “nonnegotiable demand of human dignity,” that it can accept that the Executive Branch may imprison whom it will and do so beyond the reach of the due process of law, demeans and weakens this nation’s voice abroad.
We have taken it as our duty to so state to this Court. There is no doubting America’s power at this juncture. But values count too. And, for this nation, there is no benefit in the exercise of our undoubted power unless it is deployed in the service of fundamental values: democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and due process. To the extent that we are perceived as compromising those values, to that extent will our efforts to promote our interests in the wider world be prejudiced. Such at least is our collective experience.
George Kennan’s Long Telegram from the American Embassy in Moscow to the State Department in 1946 defined the authoritarian bestiality of the Soviet system and its aim to break “the international authority of our state.” It was perhaps the most important American diplomatic communication of the last century. In closing, Kennan spoke for us all and for all time:

[T]he greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

I recommend this document as an enduring resource for policymakers, educators, and citizens alike, challenging us to consider that we don’t have to toss aside our values to defend them, that our values are a component of our potential influence abroad, that defending our principles need not detract from our “power.”

Hagee, Hitler, & CUFI program

(updates in extension)
Amid revelations (pun intended) that Pastor John Hagee deems the Holocaust to have been divine retribution against the Jews, presidential candidate John McCain belatedly sees the light and has “rejected” John Hagee’s endorsement.
Hagee’s organization, Christians United for Israel, (CUFI) trumpets itself as a Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. CUFI’s just released program for its July 21st Washington-Israel Summit reads like an altar call to an “Amen Chorus” to sing John McCain’s favorite Beach Boys tune — “Bomb bomb bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran.”
Ironically, many of the leading CUFI speakers happen to be prominent Jewish neoconservatives, set to rally Hagee’s Christian soldiers to go marching as to yet another war. Will they still appear?
Previously quite useful to the neoconservatives, Hagee from his CUFI pulpit has been shouting for the US to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran, even with nuclear weapons, as part of what Hagee deems “a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation […] and [the] Second Coming of Christ.” (not to mention the suffering of a lot of “left-behind” Jews at the hand of the “anti-Christ.”)
The first two CUFI DC conventions attracted tens of thousands. As I’ve been reminded, CUFI does not necessarily march in lock step with Israel, though when they disagree, it’s usually in the direction of shrill warnings to Israel to not give up occupied/disputed territories. Advance registration for this year’s CUFI event in Washington is down sharply from last year at this time, in part over Hagee’s perceived anti-Catholic remarks
Credit Bruce Wilson for documenting what John Hagee has been saying and writing about the Jews and the Holocaust. Here’s the YouTube audio recording of an especially chilling Hagee sermon, apparently from the late 1990’s. Hagee’s “scriptural text” is Jeremiah 16, verse 15: (emphasis added in passage below)

“Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers” – that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – “Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them” – that will be the Jews – “from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.” If that doesn’t describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust… you can’t see that. So think about this – I will send fishers and I will send hunters. A fisher is someone who entices you with a bait. How many of you know who Theodore Hertzel was? How many of you don’t have a clue who he was? WOO… Sweet God! Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew that at the turn of the 19th century said – “this land is our land, God wants us to live there”. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said, “I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel”. So few went, Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the Holocaust. Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says – Jeremiah righty? – “they shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks”, meaning: there’s no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn’t write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, “my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come BACK to the land of Israel”. Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they’re not spiritually alive.”

As one horrified Israel supporter friend commented to me this morning, Hagee appears to have suggested that “God sanctioned the killing of 6 million Jews in order to get his Jewish State.”
One wonders how Jewish leaders would react if Iran’s President Ahmadinejad would deem Hitler to have been God’s ruthless “hunter” and the holocaust to have been a just punishment by God.
It will be interested to see if distinguished figures like Senator Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Robert Satloff will still appear on the CUFI platform with Hagee. While Lieberman last week was generally defending Hagee, it will be telling how he responds to this latest Hagee controversy.
We will watch and post anything about CUFI program “updates.”
Personal Note:

Continue reading “Hagee, Hitler, & CUFI program”

Iran’s US Policy in a Nutshell

My (Scott) octogenarian mentor and friend, Ruhi Ramazani, took a stab last week at reducing a lifetime of observations about Iranian foreign policy into a 20 minute presentation for an Iran forum convened at our local Mennonite church. Sitting next to him on the platform, I had to contain a wide grin in hearing how he well did it – with many themes we’ve featured previously here at justworldnews.
The Professor one-upped himself in condensing those remarks further into a tight oped for our local newspaper. It deserves wider circulation.
In a nutshell, the “Dean of Iran Foreign Policy Studies” presents two core paradoxes that are fundamental guidelines to understanding Iran’s policies towards the United States.

1. Iranians of all political stripes are proud of their history and culture while being simultaneously and acutely aware of a repeated “victimization” of their lands by foreign powers.
2. Iranian experiences with America are also marked by both hope and despair. Just as Americans once played a prominent early role in helping Iranian efforts to modernize and free themselves from European exploitation, that trust was betrayed by American orchestrated restoration of the Shah to his throne in 1953 – and the overthrow of yet another indigenous democratic experiment in Iran.

Were a future US Administration to grasp these two legacies, to draw more creatively upon an historic reservoir of Iranian hopes for America, while eschewing interference in Iran’s internal political evolution, then the chances for successful dealings, even cooperation with Iran, will increase exponentially.
President George H. W. Bush — the 1st one — had it rhetorically about right. Speaking to Iran in his first inaugural address in 1989, the President observed that “goodwill begets goodwill.” That wisdom still awaits actual implementation.
(Full text of Ramazani’s oped in the extension.)

Continue reading “Iran’s US Policy in a Nutshell”

Charlottesville forum: US, Iran, & Hope?

For those near Charlottesville, Virginia Sunday evening, consider joining a forum on US-Iran Relations that convenes at 6:00 p.m. at the Charlottesville Mennonite Church. (corner of Monticello Ave. and Avon Streets)
Hosted by Rev. Roy Hange, (who lived in Iran with his family earlier this decade) the forum features a panel of three Iran observers, Carah Ong, myself (Scott Harrop), and our venerable neighbor R.K. Ramazani.
Long time readers of Just World News will recall we have featured Professor Ramazani’s essays several times. Drawing from his 55 years (and counting) of scholarship and observations on US-Iran relations, I anticipate he will be focusing on the paradox of what divides and yet pulls together Iran and the United States, nearly 3 decades after the Iranian revolution.
Carah Ong is currently the Iran Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. See her solid Iran focused blog, especially her coverage of Iran nuclear issues, Congress, and interesting reports of her recent journey to Iran.
Our prepared comments will consider our working question — what “reasons for hope” can we discern for improving ties between the US and Iran?
As a hook to the evening, see the Thursday night University of Georgia panel of five former American Secretaries of State, Powell, Albright, Kissinger, Baker, and even Christopher, and how they agreed on two points — that Gitmo needs to be shut down and that the US should be talking to Iran.
Fancy that. For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has been trapped by its own novel idea, at least towards Iran, that a state doesn’t talk to other states of which it disapproves, lest it somehow grant them “legitimacy” in the talking. Our current Secretary of State now claims she wishes to talk to Iran, even as she retains conditions widely known to short-circuit the process.
That five former Secretary of States appear to have repudiated that approach, at least to me, provides a significant ray of hope. That said, even If we at least can see the need to talk to Iran, questions remain not just about what to talk about, yet also how we should talk to Iran with any hope of a positive result
Learning “how to talk to Iran” will be the focus of my remarks. Stay tuned. (or better yet, join us live.)
Note: Charlottesville Mennonite Church is located just to the south east of the downtown mall. Here’s conventional directions on how to get to it: 701 Monticello Avenue.

Kissinger: “Talk to Iran”

Late Thursday night, Henry Kissinger gave an interview with Bloomberg TV, and the 13+ minute segment can be viewed via this link. Kissinger is reputed to be among US Presidential candidate John McCain’s advisers, and he remains an icon among “realist” analytical circles.
I’ll leave it to Helena Cobban or other sharp jwn readers to comment on the rest of his remarks. Kissinger, for example, sticks to the stale, if safe line that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Helena has well articulated a different view here repeatedly.
I am more struck by Kissinger’s apparent “off the reservation” observations and counsel regarding US-Iran relations. His Iran remarks roughly come between minutes 3:30 and 7:30 of the recording. Here’s a quick summary of his points, with my comments:
1. Kissinger sets out his working question, about whether Iran is a “nation” or a “cause.” Presumably, we can deal with the former, but not so well with the latter. Kissinger (HAK) presumably finds Iran today to be more of a “nation,” one with which we can be fellow “realists.”

This is more than mere academic jargon. Neoconservative godfathers, from Bernard Lewis to Norman Podhoretz have been advancing the fallacious argument that Iran remains an irrational “cause.” To Podhoretz (and his source Amir Taheri), never mind what the Islamic Republic says or offers, Iran will be an incorrigible “existential” threat to Israel, even unto “martyrdom.” Kissinger, to his credit, sees other possibilities.
Funny thing, I first wrote about revolutionary Iran adapting to “reasons of state” back in early 1984 — in a grad. school seminar. So glad the Secretary is catching up.
By the way, what is America under Bush – a nation, or a cause?

2. Kissinger supports “direct negotiations” with Iran. Yet he also supports what Secretary Rice thus far has offered, “to meet with Iranians anywhere, anytime.” Kissinger claims that the problem hasn’t been the willingness to talk, but the content, the agenda about which we might talk.

What’s a neoconservative to make of this? On the one hand, Israel is not to talk to Hamas because it doesn’t formally recognize Israel’s right to exist. Yet the US can talk to Iran, never mind the incendiary remarks, shall we say, of its current President about Israel’s legitimacy. Ah, but in Kissingerian realpolitik logic, it “works:” states must talk to each other, but not, apparently, to each others’ internal rebel movements. George III, then and now, logic.
As for Secretary Rice’s offer to “talk,” this is a bit disingenuous, as Rice’s offers thus far come with the precondition that Iran give up uranium enrichment. In that sense, sure, there is a problem about the agenda, whether Iran’s uranium enrichment is to be part of the talks, or something Iran is being expected to give up, as a precondition.

3. In response to question about what person the US should send to talk to Iran, Kissinger remarkably says it’s “generally not a good idea” to start such talks at a high level.

Really? One wonders then just how the Nixon Administration’s famous opening to China was achieved? Was that some low level contact that pulled that off? Perhaps Kissinger is merely recognizing that neither Bush nor Rice are the least bit likely to meet with the Iranians this year, and granting them a (transparent) fig leaf.
Speaking of low level, underneath the radar activity, the US representative to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a Sada Cumber, is being quoted in Iranian sources saying that “the US is prepared to work with Iran…”

4. Other notable HAK quotes: “Regime change cannot be an objective of our foreign policy.” — at least not if we wish to solve regional problems… In contemplating “if” Iran would be willing to address our concerns, Kissinger suggests the US would have an “obligation” to respond.

This hints headlines to come. Never mind Rice’s lame claims to the contrary, Kissinger apparently is aware of the various “grand-bargain” offers from Iran.
As for eschewing “regime change,” did candidate McCain get the memo?

5. Intriguingly, Kissinger suggests that he has been part of “totally private” talks with unspecified Iranians. He claims that “approaches” have been put before these Iranians “which with a little flexibility on their part” would “surely” lead to negotiations.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Might Kissinger be part of the ongoing discrete “private” efforts with the Iranians? I doubt it, but who knows? One wonders too of a rat in the works here, as once could speculate that such a disclosure, that Kissinger himself is involved in private talks with Iran, might be a sure way to wreck them.

Iran’s Parliament Elections & Red Cards

Iran’s Parliamentary elections take place today, amid widespread criticisms of the process, especially from within. Iran’s vetting Council of Guardians has been especially zealous in blocking thousands of prominent reformists from running for election to Iran’s 290 seat Parliament. (Majlis)
Such vetting provoked loud condemnation, with one reformer, Ali Akbar Motashamipur, publicly proclaiming that, “If anyone’s qualifications should be rejected, it is the 12 members of the Council of Guardians.” He boldly characterized the Council’s rejections as “falsifying, fraudulent, slanderous, and seditious” and called on “all the people to resist any government which applies such tactics.”
While nearly 900 candidate rejections were eventually reversed, Iranians appear split over whether the elections provide significant choices, whether they constitute a referendum on the policies of President Ahmadinejad, or whether choosing not to vote constitutes a “vote against the system” or a “vote for arrogance.” (that is, for American and external intervention)
Here’s a useful round-up of diverse western reporting on the elections thus far. I also suggest attention to Scott Peterson’s recent reporting. Last week, he touched on the unprecedented battles over who owns the revolution, the role of the military in politics, and the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini.
Among the sensations afoot, Iran’s new Revolutionary Guards commander stirred a hornet’s nest when he declared that, “To follow the path of the Islamic revolution, support for the principlists is necessary, inevitable, and a divine duty of all revolutionary groups…”
That “brought stinging rebuke from across the political spectrum, even from fellow hard-liners such as the editor of the hard-line newspaper Kayhan, who called it a “faulty declaration” that is “against the clear guidelines.” Hassan Khomeini, the reformist grandson of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, proclaimed that, “If a soldier wants to enter into politics, he needs to forget the military and the presence of a gun in politics means the end of all dialogue.” (What a concept…)
On Monday, Mehdi Karrubi, the former Majles speaker, invoked a sports analogy (sorry Helena) to lament the prospects for fellow reformists: “we are like a football team; many of our players have been given a red card.”
Hard-line outlets fiercely reject such criticisms. On Wednesday, the newspaper Resalat editorialized that many “extremist” reformists “deserved a red card,” and, in any case, the refomists should be thankful to the Guardian Council. If they hadn’t been disqualified, the lame logic goes, there would have been too many candidates, and the reformists would have negated each other’s strength, with up to seven competing for each vacancy.
Resalat conveniently doesn’t mention the many obstacles in the way of political party formation in Iran. Nor does it mention that reformists apparently are still blocked from running in over half of the contests. I’ve seen independent reports, including this one, suggesting reformist candidates are being allowed to compete for only 110 out of 290 seats.
Many Iranians will deem the present Iranian Majlis elections as too crabbed to be even worth getting their “fingers stamped,” as Peterson’s dispatch today suggests. The Guardian headline today opines, “Iran’s reformists” are facing a challenge to fight off irrelevance in an election they cannot win. Yet as the paper’s Julian Borger notes, “For all its limitations, political leaders of every hue still believe there is something worth fighting for in the Majlis election.”
Perhaps because I subscribe to a more nuanced view of Iran’s ever shifting factional struggles, I will be watching for content, even if it appears that the remaining reformist candidates do not fare well. Among the presumed “conservatives,” there are widely differing viewpoints and tendencies. For example, it remains quite unclear how many “moderate conservatives” critical of Ahmadinejad remained in the race. Hope may be in the details.