Scher Re-frames Debate On Iran

This is priceless. Bill Scher at the Huffington Post on re-framing the Iran debate. I think he should re-frame himself in one of those velvet clown paintings. Take a look at this.

So, what is it that the Liberals would do, besides nothing of course?

How can we reframe the discussion? Our arguments should flow from the following framework:

1. Iran presently has a strong, rational incentive to get nukes.

Bush is planting permanent military bases on Iran's doorstep in Iraq, and trying to proliferate nukes to nearby India. Iran's feeling the heat, and desperately wants to pull a North Korea: get a nuke to keep the neocons at bay.

How clueless. India already has the bomb(s):

from 2002: From various sources, we estimate that India has a stockpile of approximately 30--35 nuclear warheads (fewer than Pakistan), which it is thought to be expanding.

Dang, Bush works fast. Either that, or India had the bomb under Clinton. Oh, but blame it on Bush! What a joke. And he must not have a  globe. There are already plenty of bases in the area if that was Iran's concern. And let's not forget what Iran wants:

IRAN occupies two islands in the Persian Gulf claimed by the United Arab Emirates: Lesser Tunb (called Tunb as Sughra in Arabic by UAE and Jazireh-ye Tonb-e Kuchek in Persian by Iran) and Greater Tunb (called Tunb al Kubra in Arabic by UAE and Jazireh-ye Tonb-e Bozorg in Persian by Iran); it jointly administers with the UAE an island in the Persian Gulf claimed by the UAE (called Abu Musa in Arabic by UAE and Jazireh-ye Abu Musa in Persian by Iran)—over which Iran has taken steps to exert unilateral control since 1992, including access restrictions and a military build-up on the island; the UAE has garnered significant diplomatic support in the region in protesting these Iranian actions.

It's hard to make a case Iran's move is defensive when they already have expansionist motivations on neighbors which include a military build up on disputed land. Oh, but the US must be the bad guy. Yeah, right. So much for Iran's rational, non-threatening motivation to want nukes. Neither the US nor Israel has any rationale to simply nuke Iran and everyone knows it. And you can't say Iran thinks it and then go on to claim they are rational as you do below.

2. Iran has acted rationally and can be reasoned with.

According to former Bush aide Flynt Leverett, in 2003 the Iranian government offered Bush "a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences ... about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations." Bush's response? "[C]omplain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line."

Hmm, wonder why Iran doesn't want to talk now.

Hey, Bill!

What is the status of Europe's nuclear negotiations with Iran?

They are in trouble. Since October 2003, Iran and three members of the European Union (EU)--Britain, France, and Germany--have engaged in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish its uranium-enrichment program because the technology can easily be adapted for military uses. Iranians, however, say they will not give up what they see as their sovereign right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program. In recent weeks, the stances of both sides have toughened. A last-ditch attempt at reviving the talks will take place in Geneva May 25.

Iranian diplomats say that Europe has failed to offer incentives that would encourage them to modify their nuclear goals.

Oh, wait, that can't be - it's Bush's fault. Not! The Europeans have far more sway with the Iranians than we will ever have and they couldn't get it done because of Iran's demands.

Further, while neocons play up President Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statements to create a perception that Israel would get nuked, Israeli officials disagree. According to Middle East specialist (and former adviser to GOP Rep. Bob Ney) Trita Parsi, Israel's primary concern is a loss of diplomatic leverage.

This was echoed on MSNBC's Hardball last night, by retired Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor -- " I think [the Iranians] are using it ... for prestige and also diplomatic leverage within the region." -- and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey -- "the Iranians have a very poor capability to deliver these weapons at that range."

How foolish. What Scher quoted was an editorial in the Lebanon Daily Star written by Trita Parsi. Middle East specialist? lol Try President of the National Iranian American Council. They've been denounced as a mullah puppet by groups seeking democracy for Iran. Now there's an objective point of view who knows what Israel thinks. Does Scher not realize people can check this stuff out?

Finally, while Ahmadinejad surely is not a loveable character, he is not calling all the shots. He's not even a mullah. This is not an irrational regime hell-bent on apocalypse.

Yeah, Bill, we get it. The mullahs are the rational ones. Is this comedy night at the Huff Po, or what? ha ha ha And the rest of his re-framing the debate:

3. There is plenty of time to negotiate.

4. The Bush Administration's word is not credible.

5. The way to stop Iran, without causing more death, destruction and instability, is to remove the incentives for Iran to go nuclear, and negotiate.

I think I finally get it. Don't trust Bush, trust our security to the mullahs and let's keep talking, even though the whole time they've been talking with the Europeans they went right on developing the program while lying about it until they couldn't resist pulling out the enriched uranium just to show it off to the world. Check.

Thanks for re-framing the debate, Bill. I hope it didn't take too long, seeing as how you need to go back and try again. The Trita Parsi bit was priceless - is it available on DVD?

I should have entitled this post Moonbat Sonata.

Comments

[Laertes]

You've got to deal with the fact that Bush has zero credibility. If Bush says the sky is blue, any reasonable person will check it twice. Until you accept that reality, you're not going to be a very useful analyst. Most of America has not drunk the kool-aid, buddy.

[Dan]

ha ha ha ha ha

What an enlightened response. Do you people see Bush in your sleep?????

[warrenb]

What an immature response. I'd expect more from a Republican poser. On second thought...No i wouldn't.

[Jay]

Ha! I think the most laughable one is #2. Iran has acted rationally? When did that happen?

[tester]

There is a difference between having direct US control of a nuke in Iraq versus nukes being in India. They are two different things. Implying that Bush controls both sets of nukes is simply not the case.

You are forgetting one thing : This is the middle east and the US is ALWAYS the bad guy.

Having US controlled nukes or even having the US on another boarder is a reason for Iran to be defensive. Would the US be defensive if Mexico invaded Canada? If the reasons for enrichment are non-US related, could the acceleration reflect the additional defensive action due to US actions? Iran has got to feel a bit squeezed particularly with how Iran's past/present actions are viewed in the west, the current presence of the US military in many neighboring countries, and the US making statements regarding the desire to have middle east stability.

[xxx]

Bush has no credibility on any kind of Iran nuke program.

No one is going to support another freaking 'pre-emptive strike' invasion of another country on doctored up "facts" about a nuke program.

That is what happens when you mislead the world about your "facts"...no one believes you the second time around.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no evidence of any secret nuke program or secret labs or biological weapons...NONE of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz told us we would find in Iraq was found.

If fools want to believe that our military missed all of this stuff or it was somehow spirited out of the country under the noses of several hundred thousand troops and the best equipped military on the planet, have at it.

The boy who cried wolf is getting his payback for putting Americans at risk and in the grave for lies.

And forget about the fact that the National Guard and the Army can't get any recruits, that the Iraq "victory" is going to continue to cost American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Yeah, go ahead, invade Iran...but let me tell you one thing, Iran is a real country and it ain't going to topple over like Iraq did, oh wait, I guess Iraq didn't topple over either afterall...those insusrgents, err, terrorists are still at it.

Unf***ckbelievable they would try to pull the same scam all over again.

[tester]

"Iranian diplomats say that Europe has failed to offer incentives that would encourage them to modify their nuclear goals.

Oh, wait, that can't be - it's Bush's fault. Not! The Europeans have far more sway with the Iranians than we will ever have and they couldn't get it done because of Iran's demands."

Is Europe in the position to offer incentives and reach agreement (when US military action is occurring in many neighboring countries)? Apparently, not.

And then if you follow the link:

"What is the U.S. role in negotiations?

Its current role is largely consultative. The United States refuses to deal with the Iranians directly and says it continues to support talks between Europe and Iran."

So Europe can't get a solution and the US refuses to deal with Iran directly. Who is in charge of deciding whether to deal with Iran?

[tester]

All sorts of goodies on that site.

“We have no plans to engage Iran. Little would come out
of it; Iran is uninterested and lacks credibility, continues
to sponsor terrorism and is engaged in dirty business in
Iraq”.Engagement under such circumstances is seen as
merely legitimising the regime.
...
In the terms of Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, the nuclear talks are in European hands and better
left there. Without U.S. involvement, however, EU
diplomats remain sceptical that any deal is possible, even
under the assumption that Iran is interested.

[Rick]

Not only do I hope they have one........I hope they use it.