Senate Testimony on Iran Deal

Tempers are flaring over the Iran nuclear deal.  On C-Span, I watched some of the testimony by State Under Secretary Sherman and Treasury Under Secretary Szubin before the Senate banking committee, and the Senators I watched were not very polite, even the Democrats.  It looks like the Senators want to kill some Iranians’ they want the streets of Tehran to run red with blood.  I was appalled.  These are the same senators who have basically approved Israel’s and India’s nuclear weapons program.  And they have done little but complain about Pakistan’s and North Korea’s bombs.  This is a strange country and Congress is a strange institution.  We have already invaded two of Iran’s next door neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq; do they just want to drop one huge, multi-megaton atomic bomb and destroy all three countries at one time? 

Meanwhile, on the PBS Newshour, Ray Takeyh and Nicholas Burns debated the effectiveness of Obama’s speech.  Takeyh thought Obama had utterly failed, and Burns did not do very well defending Obama.  Takeyh complained that the agreement will expire in ten or fifteen years, and then Iran can build a bomb, glossing over the fact that in ten or fifteen years Iran will stand exactly where it stands today without the deal.  It will still be a member of the NPT, which says that it cannot build a bomb.  He said that the negotiated deal was bad and that the US should go back and renegotiate it.  When asked if it would not be hard to drag the other parties, including Russia and China, back to the table, he said it would be hard but not impossible. 

What he failed to say, and what no opponent has said that I have heard, is that the deal will give the next President, or Israel, or the UN, or whoever, at least ten years to negotiate a new deal or extend this one.  The attitude seems to be that Kerry is a lousy negotiator, but the Republicans have no one who can negotiate anything better in ten years.  This is probably true, because Ronald Reagan is dead, and he was the only Republican who seemed able to negotiate any kind of arms control agreement.  Colin Powell has basically become a Democrat, because the Republican Party has become some kind of an insane asylum.  It turns out that Condi Rice plays the piano much better than she can negotiate treaties.  No wonder Donald Trump is doing so well.  “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”  The Republicans know they are so stupid that they cannot even understand this nuclear agreement, much less negotiate anything better. 

Another aspect of this that is very odd to me is that many of the negotiators and defenders of the Iran deal are Jewish, while Israel’s allies in trying to kill it are good ol’ Christian white boys.  Those most conflicted over the agreement are Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer.  Do they go with Israel, or with the President’s Democratic Party?  They may well determine whether the Senate can override the President’s veto of the bill rejecting the Iran agreement.  John Kerry’s father was Jewish, although he claimed to be Irish.  Wendy Sherman is Jewish, according to Wikipedia.  Her Treasury colleague today, Adam Szubin, appears to be Jewish.  They were grilled, and I thought mistreated, by some angry, white senators from some agricultural states, who apparently know more about cotton and corn than about nuclear energy or international agreements.  

Obama's Iran Speech

Obama gave a good speech today in defense of the Iran deal.  He dealt with all the major issues, and answered the objections to it.  Of course, those dead set against it, many Republicans and Israelis, will not be convinced.  But it should have convinced moderate, thinking people that on balance this is a deal that should be supported because it makes the world, and the Middle East in particular, a safer place. 

He dealt with the provision most roundly criticized by opponents, the 24 day period to resolve disputes concerning sites that have not been declared as nuclear related, e.g., conventional military bases, perhaps some civilian research laboratories.  He explained that the 24 day provision applies only in controversial cases; most inspections would take place in a shorter time period.  And he made the argument that the deal is better than any alternative, especially another war in the Middle East. 

He invoked Reagan and Kennedy as two Presidents who embraced diplomacy and arms control over war.  He stopped short of pointing out that Reagan had a secret policy of appeasement with Iran by providing them banned weapons under the Iran-Contra deal.  He did mention that Bush and Cheney had strengthened Iran by eliminating its worst enemy, Saddam Hussein.  He also mentioned that the US had been one of the early providers of nuclear technology to Iran in the 1960s and 1970s.  And he did not mention that one reason Israel fears the Iranian program is that they know that Israel developed its nuclear weapons capability by tricking western countries, including the US and France, into providing much of what Israel needed for weapons. 

Israelis probably fear Iran because they have more respect for the Persian race than for the Arab race.  The Israeli-Persian relationship goes back to the Old Testament, more than 2000 years ago, when the Persian king Darius sent Daniel to the lions’ den because Daniel prayed to the God of Israel.  The Israelis probably believe that the Iranians have the expertise and infrastructure to build a bomb, unlike most or all of the Arab states, who would need much more help. 

I don’t know whether the Iran deal will be blocked by Congress.  It looks like it will be close, and the best bet for upholding it is the fact that it will be difficult for the Senate to overcome an Obama veto of a Congressional bill blocking it.  I hope the deal is allowed to go into effect.  If not, either Iran will have a much easier path to a bomb, or we will invade yet another Middle Eastern country, and this time one that is not entirely stuck in the Middle Ages, as Afghanistan and Iraq were, thus promising a bloodier, more costly war, also likely to end in defeat for the US as the Iraq war did. 

In general, I think that Obama has been a good President, especially when compared with his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Bush was probably a nice man personally, but a terrible President.  He was asleep at his post when Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center.  A relatively minor upgrade in airport security would have prevented the attack.  In contract to Bush, who was stupid and lazy nice guy, Cheney was a spiteful, mean-spirited villain.  For most of his administration, Bush was a coward before Cheney, afraid to confront Cheney’s desire to go to war with almost everybody except out closest friends.  Toward the end of his administration, as things began to visibly fall about, Bush finally began to distance himself from Cheney.  Strangely, his father’s choice of Dan Quayle to be his Vice President was one of George H. W. Bush’s worst decisions, and George W. Bush’s decision to name Cheney his Vice President was one of the son’s worst decisions.  In addition to the unsuccessful wars, Bush, who had an MBA, oversaw the destruction of the US financial system by reckless Wall Street banks, although Clinton shares the blame for his repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had reined in Wall Street. 

Obama was faced with the possibility of a second Depression when he took office, and he avoided it.  He gets criticism from the Republicans for winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who insist that if we had stayed the course we would have won.  But it we can’t win a war in a small, backward country in eight or ten years, something is wrong with our military or our strategy.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were strategic failures, whom Bush stupidly put in charge of two wars.  Their failure is highlighted by Bush I’s successful prosecution of the first Iraq war, noted recently by Richard Haass in the Wall Street Journal.  

In addition, ObamaCare expanded health care significantly.  There are still health care issues, cost and the single-payer issue, but ObamaCare was progress.  On the negative side, Guantanamo is still a prison camp that is America’s gulag.  People are being held in violation of US and international law, in spirit, if not under the letter of the law.  It is an embarrassment to a country that prides itself on its morality and rule of law.  Reagan’s “city on a hill” has slid down into the mud.  Bush and Cheney are responsible for pushing it into the mud, but Obama has not pulled it out. 

The Republicans blame Obama for his budget deficits and the growing national debt, but at least part of the problem is the Republican’s refusal to raise taxes.  No doubt some cuts are necessary, but some additional revenue is also necessary.  Today’s column by Tom Friedman in the NYT points out the intransigence of the Republicans in refusing even to raise a five cent tax per gallon of gas to fund the repair of roads and bridges.  Obama could have done better, but the Republicans made sure he was not playing with a full deck. 

Reagan's Election by the Iranian Ayatollah

“The Brink” TV show on HBO made a gag of what I think is a real reason for Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election.  The show’s Secretary of State tells a potential head of Pakistan that he can be the Pakistani Reagan by being the president when some Pakistani hostages are released.

The Iranians were really mad at the US for overthrowing their national leader and imposing the American selected Shah.  They were mad at Jimmy Carter for letting the Shah come to the US for medical treatment when he was dying of cancer.  Therefore, the Ayatollah who had taken the American hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran, wanted revenge on Carter, which he got by supporting Carter’s opponent in the American presidential election, Ronald Reagan.  Reagan was the Iranian candidate to rule America, like the Shah was the American puppet to rule Iran. 

Reagan later recognized his debt to the Iranians by giving them prohibited weapons in the Iran- Contra deal.  The Republicans owe the Iranians a huge debt for putting the man they most love into office.  Reagan wasn’t the “Manchurian Candidate,” he was the “Iranian Candidate.” 

I thought that I was one of the few who thought this until I saw the latest episode of “The Brink.”  

Hero

The cable and network news have been describing the military personnel killed in Chattanooga as “heroes.”  Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been saying that John McCain is not a hero.  So what is a hero?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “hero” as “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. “  That leaves open the question of what degree of courage, achievement, or nobility qualifies someone to be characterized as a hero.

In the Chattanooga case, it seems that to be a military recruiter has not required a high degree of any of those qualities, compared with serving in combat overseas.  If dozens or hundreds of recruiters are slain in the future, then much more courage will be required to serve as a recruiter.  If that were the case, then serving as a recruiter would be heroic in the same way that going to Afghanistan or any other war zone would be heroic.  I think that to say everyone who goes into a combat zone is a hero, debases the word.  Clearly, everyone who is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is a hero.  You can keep going down the list of medals, but the further down you go and keep calling the recipient a hero, the more you debase the use of the word to describe those who won the highest medals.  You have to come up with some superlative beyond hero for them.

John McCain may fall somewhere in that gray region below Congressional Medal of Honor, but I think any pilot or crewman who flies into heavy anti-aircraft fire probably deserves the appellation of hero.  The idea of going into great danger despite one’s fear is what makes the act heroic to me.  Again, there could be debate about what “great danger” is.  Does it mean almost certain death, or only some risk of death?  If very few planes were shot down over North Vietnam, that would make McCain’s act less heroic, but I think he went on a pretty risky mission.  In addition, his refusal to leave the POW prison before his colleagues was heroic in its nobility.

Again, describing as heroes the slain Marines in Chattanooga, who were shot while going about routine tasks, tends to lower the respect the term gives to people such as McCain and those who won the Congressional Medal of Honor.  People use the term loosely because most of them have no interest in or respect for service in the military.  They would not serve, and tend to think those who do serve are somewhat foolish or stupid; they are people who could not get a real job in the civilian world.  This contempt for the military started with Vietnam, maybe with Korea, and has diminished today, but still exists in the background.  People tend to be over complementary of the military to offset the slight contempt they have in the backs of their minds.  Maybe because I am a Vietnam veteran who came home to contempt, I misjudge this feeling, but I tend to see the overuse of hero to describe anyone killed as evidence of continuing contempt for real heroism.

In 9/11 for example, all of the first responders seem to be called heroes, but obviously some were more heroic than others.  The failure to discriminate between the real heroes and the almost heroes tends to discredit the term.  It is the same attitude that today means everybody who competes in some event gets a blue ribbon; it’s why we have grade inflation.  But there are differences.  Some heroic people are more instrumental in defeating the enemy; some heroes save more lives than others.  Failure to recognize that results are important has consequences that may come back to haunt the US someday.