The first anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration as President of the United States came this week. The sharpest criticism of Obama’s first-year record on domestic and economic affairs came from the Nobel prize-winning economist, New York Times columnist, and Princeton professor Paul Krugman. This line from Krugman encapsulates the concern many of us have:
I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt that I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.
Unfortunately, this assessment applies just as well to Obama’s approach to foreign policy. For us, Obama was an attractive candidate, first of all, because of his campaign commitment to end not just the war in Iraq but also “to end the mindset” that led the United States into that war. We and others hoped that Obama’s courageous pledge to make “engagement” a pillar of his foreign policy, especially with countries like Iran, would be seriously pursued. In his inaugural address, his first television interview with Al-Arabiyya, and his Nowruz message to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Obama’s early references to engaging Iran on the basis of “mutual interests” and in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” seemed promising to many.
But Obama’s decision to appoint prominent supporters of the Iraq war to key positions in his administration—Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Middle East super-adviser Dennis Ross—was an early and disturbing sign that the new President might not be serious about his pledge to “change the mindset” that guides much of America’s Middle East policy and pursue purposive, strategically-grounded diplomacy with Iran. Obama’s team has done little or nothing to help him develop a genuine strategy for realigning U.S.-Iranian relations, in the way that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger had a serious strategy to guide their “engagement” with China.
In the end, Obama and his advisers have spent their entire first year—and much of their political capital—trying to game the Iranian system (by ignoring President Ahmadinejad’s letter to Obama and instead trying to go over Ahmadinejad’s head by communicating directly with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and issue ultimatums (e.g., ship most of your current stockpile of low-enriched uranium out of Iran before the end of 2009 or face “crippling” sanctions) that they now pass off as attempts to “engage” the Islamic Republic. And if those attempts did not succeed, that is attributed to internal Iranian “paralysis”, not to any substantive deficiencies in U.S. policy.
But, even as his initial rhetorical pretensions about “engaging” Iran are deflated, the President and his team want to claim that their “engagement” policy has been successful after all. As we predicted in a New York Times Op Ed in May—before Iran’s June 12 presidential election and subsequent controversy surrounding its outcome provided an “excuse” to back away from serious diplomacy with Tehran—Obama’s professed interest in “engagement” is being used to build support for more coercive measures against Iran, not to recast fundamentally the U.S.-Iranian relationship. To demonstrate this, one has to look no further than what Obama himself told Time’s Joe Klein this week:
On Iran, one of our trickiest foreign policy challenges. We have held the international community together. Both in our engagement strategy, but also now as we move into the other track of a dual-track approach. Which is if they don’t accept the open hand, we’ve got to make sure they understand there are consequences for breaking international rules. It’s going to be tough, but I think the relationship we’ve developed with Russia will be very helpful. The outreach we’ve done to our traditional NATO allies will be very helpful. The work that we’ve done with China—including the work we’ve done with China to enforce sanctions against North Korea—will help us in dealing more effectively with Iran.
This proposition—that, because of Obama’s half hearted efforts at “engagement”, the United States is now in a stronger position to persuade Russia and China of the case for sanctions—is now being echoed by many of the same foreign policy elites and institutions in Washington that helped cheerlead the Bush Administration as it launched the Iraq war .
Against this, our fundamental criticism of Obama’s Iran policy is not that engagement has failed but that it has yet to be tried in any serious, strategically-grounded fashion. Yes, Obama offered some nice words and wrote a couple of letters to the Supreme Leader (while, as noted, declining to respond to a letter sent to him by Ahmadinejad). But he has shown no strategic understanding of the imperative of managing Iran’s rise and accommodating it in a new regional order in the Middle East—certainly, Obama has displayed nothing comparable to Nixon’s keen awareness of the importance of a diplomatic opening with China in the early 1970s.
Lacking such insight, Obama has never seen fit to address the Iranians’ longstanding interest in defining a “comprehensive framework” for U.S.-Iranian negotiations, aimed at a fundamental change in the character of U.S.-Iranian relations. Tehran has come to view the definition of such a framework as essential for serious U.S.-Iranian engagement, given that repeated efforts over 20 years to cooperate with the United States on particular issues (Lebanese hostages, arming Bosnian Muslims, Afghanistan after 9/11) have produced no significant strategic benefits for the Islamic Republic. Obama also declined to take concrete steps to show Tehran that he was serious about forging a different sort of U.S.-Iranian relationship. In particular, he refused to stop overt and covert initiatives to destabilize the Islamic Republic that he had inherited from his predecessor.
Under those circumstances, there was little chance that Obama’s half hearted—or, half baked—efforts at “engagement” would be seen in Tehran as serious and credible. In a year, Obama has succeeded only at giving engagement a bad name.
Obama’s failure to pursue engagement with Tehran in a substantive and strategically serious way has not been limited to the nuclear issue. The Obama Administration has not even tried to look like it is seeking to engage Iran on the range of daunting regional challenges facing the United States. During his first year in office, for example, President Obama has rolled out two high-profile policy announcements regarding Afghanistan. Neither offered any substance (and the second offered hardly any mention at all) regarding a regional strategy for engaging Afghanistan’s neighbors—including, perhaps most importantly, the Islamic Republic of Iran—in collective efforts to stabilize the security environment there and promote a political settlement.
This is strategically short sighted, in the extreme. In anticipation of the “Friends of Afghanistan” conference to be held in London at the end of this month, Karl Inderfurth and Chinmaya Gharekan have published an Op Ed, “Afghanistan Needs a Surge of Diplomacy”, in The New York Times in which they quote a statement issued recently by 20 former foreign ministers—“there needs to be a regional solution to Afghanistan’s problems”. Amplifying on this point, the Op Ed argues specifically that, “to reach the goal of a stable and peaceful Afghanistan, the country must have better relations with its powerful neighbors, including Pakistan, Iran, China, India, and Russia”.
More specifically, engaging Iran and other neighbors of Afghanistan is critical to any serious effort to broker a political settlement to what remains an ongoing civil war there. As Hillary Mann Leverett has attested from her own experience as a U.S. official negotiating with senior Iranian diplomats regarding Afghanistan for almost two years during 2001-2003, Tehran’s cooperation with Washington was critical to the initial success of international efforts to stand up a post-Taliban political order in Kabul. Iran has longstanding and influential ties with a wide range of powerful regional warlords. In many cases, Tehran was able to deliver its allies to the bargaining table to support the new Karzai government. In other cases, the Iranians kept some of their more recalcitrant Afghan partners on the sidelines, to prevent them from playing a “spoiler” role. The Iranians have important contributions to make in putting Afghanistan on a more stable trajectory. But this reality seems to be almost completely excluded from the Obama Administration’s calculations about Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration has been just as negligent in its failure to engage Iran regarding post-conflict stabilization in Iraq. Recent discussion on Iraqi politics has focused on the disqualification of 500 or so potential candidates in Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections. Some commentators have suggested, without any particular evidence, that the disqualification reflects Iranian interference in Iraqi politics. For a more granular analysis of the disqualification, see the following pieces by Reidar Visser; click here and here.
Looking beyond the immediate issue of the disqualification, the bigger picture is this: Iran is and will be a hugely influential player in post-Saddam Iraq. Tehran believes that there are vital Iranian interests at stake there, and will pursue policies intended to protect those interests. Iran has cultivated deep ties to an extensive range of important political actors in Iraq. The Islamic Republic supported virtually all of the major Iraqi Shi’a parties and their associated militias in exile, while Saddam Husayn was in power. Iran also has longstanding ties to the major Iraqi Kurdish parties and political figures, going back to the time when these Kurdish groups were the backbone of opposition to Saddam’s regime. Since Saddam’s overthrow, Tehran has worked assiduously to bolster its ties to Iraq’s new political elite and to reinforce its influence through burgeoning economic links. This strategy has given the Islamic Republic many cards to play to protect its interests in Iraq. As The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss pointed out this week , the trend in the relative balance of influence is clear: “the US has less and less leverage in Baghdad these days—and Iran has more and more”.
Given this reality, Iraq’s future should be one of several important regional issues included on a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian strategic dialogue. At a minimum, the United States should not let Iraq become an arena for proxy conflict with Iran—as Lebanon became in the 1980s. More positively, the United States should be working to persuade Iran to use its considerable influence in Iraq in ways that support American goals in the region. The Obama Administration’s failure to do this, as it seeks to position the United States to withdraw military forces from Iraq, is a profound dereliction.
President Obama’s failure to engage Iran also has deeply negative consequences in the Arab-Israeli arena. The United States is not going to be able to pry Syria away from its alliance with the Islamic Republic simply by brokering an Israeli-Syrian peace that returns the Golan Heights to Syrian control (and this administration is not about to put serious pressure on the Netanyahu government over the Syria track anyway). Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been quite clear on this point with his increasingly regular calls for a “comprehensive” peace settlement in the region. Moreover, by refusing to engage with other Iranian allies—in particular, HAMAS—the Obama Administration condemns its diplomatic efforts on the Palestinian track to failure. To think that, somehow, the United States can “corner” Iran by mediating Arab-Israeli peace is severely misguided. At this point, it is necessary to acknowledge that the United States will not be able to broker negotiated settlements on the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict without a more productive relationship with Iran.
A year after President Obama’s inauguration, America’s Iran policy—and, therefore, the Obama Administration’s “strategy” (to the extent there is one) for the Middle East as a whole—remains fundamentally incoherent.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Great article; a refreshing alternative to hawkishness of the American conservatism. Clearly, it is in the US’s interests to engage Iran so that their nations can play a productive role in the region. I hope it does so and the that they succeed so that we see peace.
Dan Cooper and Cyrus and Harrison are the only intelligent and informed commentators on this thread. As long as Dennis Ross in charge of Iran policy in Obama administration there will be no serious policy change and engagement with Iran. As Dan Cooper correctly says, the US foreign policy is run by Zionists like Ross, Holbrook, Stuart Levey, Fetman etc? Show me a non Zionist in the Obama administration who is in position of power, NONE! It is all about Israel and BIBI is calling the shots!!
INFIDEL
I will not waste too much time to reply to your post, however
You must be out of your mind to suggest, “The US helped Iran democratize”
The entire world is aware that in 1953, The US toppled the popular and democratically elected government of Iran headed by Dr Mohammad Mosadegh, and replaced him by a US puppet dictator called “The Shah”.
The main reason was oil.
If USA and British did not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs back in 1953, and did not steal Iran’s oil, by now, Iran would have been one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
I think you must be the one who is mentally handicapped if you still believe “The US helped Iran democratize”
Your stupid comments should tell readers something about you.
Your other comments about Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iranian nuclear are equally stupid.
Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has never cited Iran for diverting its civilian programme to military use.
IN 2007 the N. I. E. confirmed that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is not pursuing them.
Before US attack on Iraq back in March 2003, the UN inspectors had confirmed that Iraq had no WMD but the US still went ahead and attacked Iraq.
I suppose in your narrow mind “US helped Iraq democratize too”…lol
It’s too bad that the Obama administration, contrary to the expectations of many, is not listening to voices of reason and is instead pursuing a course which may very well lead to tragedy for all of us.
Dear Infidel,
it was the Iranians who supported the American soldiers in their conquest of Afghanistan and defeat of the Taliban — until the Ledeens and Franklins and Feiths prevented any rapproachment of Iran and the U.S. They were ready and willing to help by offering intelligence information, emergency runways and search and rescue missions. They even offered to equip and train 70,000 Afghan military troops (with the help of the American field manuals that the advisors had left behind in their flight from Tehran.
It was the Iranians who supported the Americans again in their invasion of Iraq. And the same thing happened again: The Zion-cons blocked any attempt to get warmer relations between the two countries.
It was at a time when Iran’s military budget was cut down to a bit over 4 bn. dollars that the country was called a global nuclear threat — when Bushehr still lay in tatters — and a supporter of international terrorism when Hezbollah complained about being abandoned and cut off from the financial help they had got to be used to.
How come?
P.S.: Please forgive my poor English.
“Iran’s crime is being a medieval state with rotten ambition. You’d have to be mentally handicapped to believe you need evidence to see if they’re developing nuclear weapons.”
Were you equally certain Iraq had WMD? Were you contemptuous of those who wanted more evidence than you could provide?
“The US helped iran democrotize and helped wtih women’s rights in Iran while it had influence, and yet the Iranian shah and his Iranian oppresive regime was just that – iranian, and americans couldn’t do everything for Iranians. Their interference included educating countless Iranians too. If the iranians want to blame anybody they should blame themselves, the americans and british didn’t do the coup by themselves”
So the US can finance, organize and launch a coup. It could sanction Iran (in 1953 banning oil imports and Iran’s access to currency markets) to ruin the economy, it could hire local agitators to get the economically devastated people onto the streets…but yet bears no responsibility for the government they bring to power.
“after it the Iranians let them get away with it.”
No they didn’t. That’s why that US installed government is no longer in power.
“Of course the US doesn’t talk about democracy when it doesn’t fit it, it has real interests, just like the iranians don’t talk about the injustice they inflict on iraqis with the civil war they instigate but shed crocodile tears for the palestenians.”
I’m sorry. I was under the Impression that it was the United States and its “coalition” that invaded Iraq under contrived pretexts. But all along it was actually Iran. Or are you telling us that the US bears no responsibility for what happens in countries they invade and occupy? That if a civil war happens, it can’t be America’s fault?
“Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the responsibility of Saudis and Egyptions, not the US. Syria is one of the worse arab regimes and they’re anti-americans, American ’support’ means jack in keeping those repressive regimes. It’s the people that are responsible. How many egyption protests have you seen lately?”
It was the neocons and the Bush administration who blabbered on about democracy, not anyone else. The US backed governments undertake policies such as the starvation of Gaza, that no locally formed government would take. In the absence of US interference, Egypt might still be authoritarian. But it would never participate in the starvation of Gaza. Only a puppet government would do that.
I welcomed Obama’s election on foreign policy grounds. While he remains preferable to what we would have gotten with McCain, I am quite disappointed in his foreign policy so far. He has refused to spend political capital taking on the interests here in the U.S. that basically want to continue the Bush-Cheney policies. As a result, the debate has virtually been ceded to the neocons. This could have serious consequences down the road.
I still want to give the president a chance, though. Even the most thoughtful Americans tend to think in terms of months, weeks or even days. We need to allow some time — years, perhaps — for leaders and their policies to, shall we say, ripen. Of course, the Chinese think in terms of centuries; to them even decades represent too short an horizon.
I don’t find quoting Krugman a compelling lead-in to this piece. The last thing Obama needs to do is follow more closely the leftist foolishness espoused by Krugman, a man who got his Nobel based on the political winds of the moment, rather than any deep understanding of economics. The election returns in Massachusetts represent a repudiation of Krugmanomics. That Krugman is taken seriously in some quarters is a mark of how screwed up America is at the moment.
I find Wig-Wag’s tone rather offensive, for this reason: if you haven’t got the guts to put your name on your comments, then you should observe the decencies. If you want to call people names, let us know who you really are, as opposed to hiding behind some silly internet moniker.
Dan Cooper,
Iran’s crime is being a medieval state with rotten ambition. You’d have to be mentally handicapped to believe you need evidence to see if they’re developing nuclear weapons.
The US helped iran democrotize and helped wtih women’s rights in Iran while it had influence, and yet the Iranian shah and his Iranian oppresive regime was just that – iranian, and americans couldn’t do everything for Iranians. Their interference included educating countless Iranians too. If the iranians want to blame anybody they should blame themselves, the americans and british didn’t do the coup by themselves and after it the Iranians let them get away with it. And when they had the chance to build a decent country they decided to create an ‘islamic’ utopia that’s the source of all their misery right now.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the responsibility of Saudis and Egyptions, not the US. Syria is one of the worse arab regimes and they’re anti-americans, American ’support’ means jack in keeping those repressive regimes. It’s the people that are responsible. How many egyption protests have you seen lately? Just anti-western ones. They’re busy killing their chirstian minorities and ranting about jews to protest for something decent.
As for Saudi Arabia, it doesn’t get US aid and acted against the interests of the US plenty of times, continues to do this today, it’s a wahabi pro-alqaida state. The PEOPLE want it to be this repressive, because that’s their brand of islam. The US would be as successufl in improving women’s rights in saudi arabia as the saudis would be in making american women wear the veil and stay home. SA is actually one of the least repressive regimes, I’ve seen an interview with an opposition activist once and even he acknowledged it’s not exactly saddam’s regime, with jails full of tortured opponents. what’s repressive about it is what the saudis sees as islamic law, which is quite taliban-like, and again the US is not responsible for the koran or one country’s interpretation of it.
Of course the US doesn’t talk about democracy when it doesn’t fit it, it has real interests, just like the iranians don’t talk about the injustice they inflict on iraqis with the civil war they instigate but shed crocodile tears for the palestenians. However bush did talk about democracy in all the arab world, and obama woul talk about democracy in egypt of egyptions go out and protest. he’d have no choice. He’d never talk about democracy in saudi arabia because al-qaida would probably win (interesting to know that the al-qaida like groups don’t support elections of any kind, it’s against islam they say).
To Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Great site and Great article
However, in your article, I would have liked to see more analysis of the destructive power and influence of Israel lobby in Obama’s administration and foreign policy.
I strongly believe that: In America, “Obama” is in office, but “Israel Lobby” is in power.
From the late 1980’s to the present, The Israel Lobby has been in the forefront of a campaign to promote a US military confrontation with Iran in collaboration with Israel.
The Zionist military proposals gained tremendous momentum during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.
The Israel Lobby mounted an unrelenting mass media propaganda campaign demonizing Iran, fabricating and disseminating falsified accounts of its nuclear programs, infiltrating and occupying key positions in the US Treasury Department, aggressively bludgeoning other governments, industries, banks and investors to boycott Iran.
Zionist Treasury Department officials hope to strangle and weaken Iran’s economy in order to soften it up for a military strike.
No other single or combined force in North America, or, for that matter, any place in the world (except Israel) has played as big a role in promoting an offensive war against Iran as the Zionist politicians and officials in the US government.
They were aided and abetted by Jewish lobbies, Zionist propaganda centres, multi-billionaires and hundreds of Jewish community organizations.
The most important foreign policy of US and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East. Their objective is to protect Israel at any cost and in doing so; they do not care if they destroy Iran.
Their sole aim is to destabilise Iran’s government and replace it by a US puppet government that protect the US and Israel interests in the region, and not the interest of Iran or Iranian people.
USA and Israel are aware that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences”; instead, The CIA and Mossad plan for Iran is an agenda to maintain division and instability.
They intend to Damage Iran economically in order to turn more people against their government, which in turn would destabilise and divide Iran. In other words, bloodshed and chaos equals control.
So far, American government Has lost nearly 5000 soldiers, spent over 900 billion dollars and killed and maimed over one million Iraqis.
This is the price American government is prepared to pay in order to change a regime in Iraq and replace it by a puppet government to look after the interests of US and Israel in the region.
To American government, “Iran” is worth far more than “Iraq”
Iranian people must be aware that Iran is next. They must not allow USA and Israel to turn their beautiful country into another hell like Iraq In the name of freedom and democracy.
Iranian people must also be aware that another revolution will have catastrophic consequences for Iran and its people.
If the USA and Israel manage to divide the Iranian people and to destabilise the Iranian government, this will trigger another revolution and bloodshed far greater than what we have witnessed in Iraq and Lebanon.
There will be bombing, street fighting, etc, the like of which we have not seen before.
There is also a good possibility that Iran will be divided, as did Soviet Union, into smaller countries, such as: Kurdistan, lorestan, blouchestan, Azerbaijan etc
The only looser will be the Iranian people.
The last thing Iran needs is another revolution and bloodshed, however, Iran does need reform which can only be achieved by civil and peaceful none violent demonstrations.
Once again in his vitriol, WigWag throws in the idea of Israel attacking Iran.
I do not think the leaders of Israel will be so foolish to undertake such a suicidal mission. As would it be also suicidal for Iran to launch an attack on Israel.
So please, it will be useful to you and everyone else in this forum if you take that idea from your mind completely.
This is an excellent analysis.
President Obama is being credited for trying to engage Iran and yet he has refused to respond to a letter from the Iranian president.
Responding to a letter is the simplest act of decorum and could very well have been the icebreaker for meaningful engagement.
However, the powers that be would have none of that.
But why give “engagement” a bad name?
Iran’s crime is its independence.
Iran is an independent state and it has maintained itself as an independent, major state in the Middle East. That is intolerable to the U.S.A.
The most important foreign policy of USA and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East.
In pursuit of this policy, they have imposed an unfair economic sanction on Iran.
The U.S. government hides its antagonism behind moral veils such as “women’s rights”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and so forth, but the real intention is to bring Iran to heel.
For the past 30 years, they have done their utmost to weaken Iran economically.
They have imposed an unfair economic sanction and unjustly accusing Iran of wanting to build a nuclear bomb without a shred of evidence.
The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade.
Non-existent nuclear weapons or facile concerns for democracy have nothing to do with the coming American onslaught on Iran.
For 37 years that the shah of Iran was a puppet of USA, there was no democracy or freedom in Iran, human’s right were abused on a daily bases but the “so called” freedom loving American government and the west media did not condemn or demonise the shah, but Now they are so keen to get involve in internal Iranian affairs by pretending that they care about the democracy and freedom in Iran.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt ruled by one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, they do not have elections.
Have you ever heard Mr. Obama publicly condemn the lack of freedom and democracy in those countries? Have you ever heard any media outrage for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Offcours not, they are US allies.
Hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach.
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that America has no intention of rapprochement with Iran and is using all her might to destabilise the Iranian regime?
Wow. Two voices of sanity.
I only wish your talents were properly utilized through direct employment by this administration.
Leverett and Mann-Leverett think they can say just about anything that pops into their heads to bolster their argument; doing this doesn’t make them look smart, it makes them look foolish.
They say,
“Iran also has longstanding ties to the major Iraqi Kurdish parties and political figures, going back to the time when these Kurdish groups were the backbone of opposition to Saddam’s regime.”
Do they think their readers are so uninformed that they don’t know drivel when they see it?
Whatever ties the two competing Iraqi Kurdish political parties once had to Tehran are now moribund at best. The Iraqi Kurds and the Iranians both understand the concept that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” so they were happy to cooperate to oppose the man they both hated more than anyone else in the world; Saddam Husayn. Once the United States removed Saddam from power, Iranian influence with the Kurds disappeared virtually over night. The only influence that they might still maintain is their ability to modulate the positions of their Shia allies in the South to the benefit of the Kurds. Their direct influence with Kurdish political parties has been extinguished by the American invasion.
For goodness sake, don’t the Leveretts have an even passing familiarity with what’s happening in Iraq’s Kurdish regions (and ethnically mixed regions in the North)?
Don’t they realize that the Kurds would gladly allow their part of Iraq to be incorporated into the United States as the 51st state? Short of that, don’t they realize that the Kurds would gladly have American troops stationed in their region for decades? Are they unfamiliar with the fact that the IDF and Mossad have become one of the main sources of weapons and training for the Peshmerga? Do they understand that an autonomous or independent Kurdish region in Iraq is a major threat to Iran; both as a jumping off point for a potential invasion or air attack by Israel and/or the United States and as an example to the restive Iranian Kurdish population?
What Iran offers to the United States in terms of the Kurds is exactly nothing. Even the most dimwitted observer is sure to understand this.
Everyone knows that the Leveretts are smart, experienced and thoughtful commentators. It’s their tendency to say just about anything to back up their point of view, no matter how ridiculous, that causes many people to conclude that they’re cranks.
Do they really think that the United States needs Iranian help with the Kurds?
Give me a break!
Dennis Ross always made it clear that any attempted engagement was just a formality to make war more palatable.