21 July 2015

Brian Meadows and his inconvenient questions

A post by Brian Meadows, a member of the Facebook "Progressive Zionism" forum drew my attention, mostly due to forcefulness of the argument - in defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran. So much so that I decided to do some parsing of the post and to squeeze in some remarks here. So, if the link at the beginning doesn't work for you, you shall see the full text of Mr Meadows post below.

OK, folks. I'm lukewarm about the deal with Iran myself, but I've a few questions to ask the irreconcilables and a few inconvenient facts for them as well.
Facts should be always welcome, to irreconcilables and otherwise, I submit.
First, the questions: could any one of you have gotten as good a deal?
I would submit that, as far as my sensitive (to beta and gamma rays and other unpleasant elements of a nuke going off in the vicinity) skin is concerned, there are no shades of "good". Either Ayatollahs get the nukes or they don't. All the shades in between are irrelevant. And, as most experts on the subject agree, Iran does get the nukes at the end of the day. So what we have is a bad agreement - one that President Obama promised to walk away from.
If not, shall I assume that you're ready to put on a Foreign Legion uniform or something and march to war against Iran?
I am not sure whom Mr Meadows is addressing in this post - because here in Israel we don't need Foreign Legion's uniforms, we have our own and been fighting Iran via its proxies - like Hezbollah and Hamas - for quite a long time already. As for the war with Iran - unfortunately, in the circumstances, it will be coming - 10 or so years down the road, maybe even sooner. I am being too old for that one, but my children are not, and I am not looking forward to that war, no sir.
If you couldn't have gotten as good a deal and you're not ready to fight, I have a label for you: BLOODTHIRSTY TRENCH-DODGER! Something which any competent soldier despises, so STFU!
I would have agreed to that sentiment, but the proposal to STFU* kinda doesn't sit right with me - let's leave it for later.
Second: many of you say, I know, that it was tough sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place and you're probably at least partially right. However, another part of this was the Bush administration's refusal to talk to 'evil' at all at a time when, had we done so, we could've put the kibosh on any nuclear plans Iran might have had. In 2003, Iran had only 300 centrifuges. I also suggest that Darth Cheney had an ulterior motive: he wanted to direct, from behind (he being the chief of bloodthirsty trench-dodgers) an American march into Tehran and make Iran an example of what happens to our satraps who dare to think they deserve real independence! And had the GOP won the 2006 midterms, I believe that would've been set into motion!
Ehehe... what can I say about that, not being a side in the GOP-Dems incessant bickering? Only that if I had a dollar (nah, make it a shekel) for every time a supporter (or a member) of the current administration blames Bush/Cheney for every SNAFU that happened during the last 6+ years, I would be quite a wealthy character by now. As for that statement that Bush administration should have settled the Iranian nuclear ambitions back then - what is it based upon exactly? As far as I remember, Iranian attitude to everything American back then was even worse than it is today, so what chance did Bush have? Nah... empty words.
Third, Iranian feeling against us dates back to 1953, when our beloved CIA engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected (and SECULAR!) prime minister Mossadegh, which then allowed the Shah to return as absolute monarch.
Related to this, some of you seem to think we could have brought Iran much closer to effective surrender. Let me now share with you that NO Iranian has forgotten Mossadegh nor our overthrow of him. In light of that, no Iranian government was or is likely to do that. Remember what happened when the Royal Navy claimed a right to stop our ships? Strike up the 1812 Overture.
So if you think we could get a better deal, you need to account for Iran's national pride, something which is rather (and understandably) prickly towards us right now. Obama knows this and acted accordingly.
None of the above information, enlightening as it may be for those who don't know that bit of history, justifies the holes in the agreement that make it rather a temporary patch instead of a definite solution. These facts may explain Obama's behavior and his decision making process (although they don't, not fully) - but they do not make the "best possible" agreement into a workable agreement. And believe you me, Mr Meadows, I am more sorry about it than you.
I have time, so you all can take yours as you post. If there's anything you think I've missed, feel free to call attention to it.
I think, Mr Meadows, that you missed, first of all, the facts that are related to the agreement itself, and here is the point where I would like to ask a question or two: have you indeed read the agreement? And have you read any critique of the agreement?
None of us know how rationality and messianism are mixed in the Iranian leadership and that can go either way.
Indeed, so why are we ready to assume the best, signing of on something with more holes than cheese in it?
But either you think you can get a better deal or you're ready to put on a uniform. Absent both, STFU and do some listening!
My last remark will be not about the substance of the post but about its style. As far as I understand from your FB page, Mr Meadows, you are a "Speech Writer & Campaign Aide at Progressive Messaging", meaning a person versed in all things PR. Which is (for me) a bit hard to reconcile with the rather crude styling of your post and your insistence that people who disagree with you STFU - even if they are bloodthirsty trench-dodgers. But of course I don't know anything about campaigning and its current style in US, so who knows...

Now I shall STFU.

(*) For those who don't know the term - STFU.

40 comments:

Stan said...

As bad as the nuclear aspect of "the deal" is, the windfall of money heading into the pockets of the Iran regime is just as frightening. The Middle East is on fire, throwing a hundred and 50 billion dollar bills on the fire is not what a good firefighter would do.
But, to answer the question. Yes. I think I could have gotten a better deal from Iran.

Stan

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Hear, hear! Good points both, Stan.

Proudscalawag said...

Then share with us the particulars by all means!

Proudscalawag said...

SImon,
your post is very good reading. You can take it for granted that I
wasn't addressing YOU, as one who hath worn a uniform and whose children
will, as a trench-dodger. The number and quality of 'holes' in this
agreement seem to me to be highly debatable, especially when scientists
like Ernest Moniz tell us 24 days is still plenty of time to pick up
radioactive residue--and I am not disposed to so debate. I'll leave that
to the real and/or imagined experts, of which I know myself not to be.
No,
I think those I address are those who had actually made up their minds
before anything was signed and are howling at the top of their lungs
with barely so much as a smidge of reasoning.
I
might point out that it's almost always more difficult to 1) hammer out
an agreement and 2) keep a squinting eye on the adversary lest that
same adversary cheat than it is simply to blast away--but it is also, at
least potentially, the 'win-win' way to go.
As
to assuming the better over the worse, well, I suggest that's who WE
are. It is not, nor should it be, to fire first and ask questions after
and, worse, shrug our shoulders over unarmed 'collateral damage'.
Further, I suggest that such a way is that of a coward and not of the
truly courageous. The way of courage is to attempt agreements and give
them a chance while maintaining strict vigilance. And as citizens of a
democracy, it's up to us to compel our representatives to do so. You do
believe in democracy, SImon; am I right?

Stan said...

The particulars. Walk away. The party that is willing to walk away will get far more. Try it in the Old City. Start walking away and mean it. The vendor will chase you down the street lowering his price. The administration were terrible negotiators. Ehud Barak laid it out. You politely say, we will take military action unless you dismantle your nuclear facilities. Now lets talk. President Obama took the military option off the table in public statements.


Stan

peterthehungarian said...

The way of courage is to attempt agreements and give them a chance while maintaining strict vigilance.

And anyway if we courageous have been mistaken we can console ourselves - we tried really hard, not us but others died but probably they were cowards anyway.

And as citizens of a democracy, it's up to us to compel our representatives to do so.
Why to compel your representatives? In a true democracy you go first to the UN don't you?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Thanks for the compliment, Brian. I still do hope that somehow that war I mentioned could be avoided, if only for the sake of kids on all sides of the conflict.

As for those who, as you say, "those who had actually made up their minds before anything was signed" - there always will be a percentage of this kinds, nothing to do about.

But I can give you an example of a person who, like I, wasn't against the agreement from the start. And what he read there - but see for yourself: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/today-i-resign-as-a-lifelong-democrat-but-i-cannot-embrace-republicans-either/

And of course guns not always solve any issue, but when you declare from the start that guns are not a option, you can hardly expect the other side to be too excited.

As for your question: I do believe in democracy, but I always prefer a democracy with teeth and not one that loses its taste for freedom and closes on itself.

Notice how today's paleo-conservatives and ultra-lefties both clamor for America self-isolation from the world. Notice also how your POTUS is leaving the Middle East, seeing in Iran a stabilizing factor there. What could be more absurd?

Oh well, that is a whole another can of worms, I guess.

Regards.

Proudscalawag said...

Drawing back, yes. Leaving? I rather doubt it. Two of you said Obama took military action off the table publicly. But privately? Can we know?
I'll take a gander at that post, and thanks. We may not agree, but to debate and discuss with you is a distinct pleasure. Thanks again!

Proudscalawag said...

Here is a post from Tablet Magazine, which I've found to have a remarkable variety of viewpoints, on this subject. Will also share a post from 'The Daily Beast' later.

http://tabletmag.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=10ba00461a63ee91d9ba58b70&id=b3cc6f444f&e=57af4918c9

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Thank you, Brian, I think it is an interesting article. There are two points that cause me doubt:

1. The good professor himself is in a precarious position, as the article knows to tell.

2. The small percentage of the folks that shout "Death to America/Israel" unfortunately includes those who decide, at least for the moment.

But I definitely wish the professor the best of luck and hope his kind of people will win at the end.

Proudscalawag said...

That's one reason why I support at least giving this deal a chance. It may offer more burrowing-space under the ayatollahs than we yet realize. And now's the time to start burrowing!

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Oh, with that neither I nor 99% of other people will argue.

GideonSwort said...

A couple of thoughts for you Brian.

Questionable timing - The economic stronghold placed around Iran, their increasing expenditure on Shia domination in the ME, brought them to the negotiating table. Obama’s second term is ending (remaining time for Legacy building), brought him to the table. At the current level of economic decline, and increasing expenditure on Sunni annihilation one can easily speculate that two more years would have brought Iran to the negotiating table in a much more pliable state.

Other Parties - This agreement does not nullify the prospect that Iran’s nuclear installations will not be attacked by “other” parties. Some speculate that this sieve like agreement will in-fact accelerate this possibility, as these “other”
players, ones that will not tolerate a nuclear Iran were held back from acting by assurances of an impending good deal (aka ‘give diplomacy a chance’). Now that the full details of the deal have been revealed, none of these “other”
parties will feel obligated to hold position.

Proudscalawag said...

Time will tell.

GideonSwort said...

Try to catch Ari Shavit on
Charlie Rose - aired last knight (pst). Time aspect is elucidated concisely.

Rob Miller said...

Someone needs to school Brian about what actually happened in 1953.

Mossadegh was a freakin' commie, a Soviet tool affiliated with the Tudeh Party who had already been dismissed by the Majlis but was still working with Stalin to sell his country to the Soviets. We stopped that, and saved the Iranian people from being enslaved and subjected to all the wonderful things Stalin brought to the other parts of the Soviet Empire...totalitarian barbarism, privation, and hunger. It woud have made rule under the Pahlavis paradise by comparison.

I'm glad we did it.Why shouldn't we have stopped commie aggression and expansion?

As for the Iran deal, all we had to do was actually keep the sanctions up and actually tighten them. Our Dear Leader could simply have given the regime a choice between having a nuclear weapons program and having an economy. We could even have shut down Iran's oil trade entirely by invading and occupying Kharg Island where all the pipelines terminate and the tankers fill up.

That's EXACTLY what Reagan did in the.80's when the Iranians attempted to shut down the Persian Gulf...that, and sinking most of what passed for their navy. We had little trouble from Iran after that until Mr. Bill came on the scene.

Or he could have blown the place up. But he never had any serious intention of doing anything decisive.

What Obama got here was a threefer. He screwed over Israel, damaged and humiliated the U.S.and kicked the can down the road until he's safely out of office, just like Clinton did with North Korea. This 'deal' actually calls fr theWest to give Iran new technology and to train their security people to prevent any sabitage by say, Israel.Give this two or three years until Iran announces a successful nuclear weapons test and then tell me what a great deal this is...not to mention all the money that will go to keep this fascist regime in power and aid Hezbollah, Hamas and Abbas's thugs, .

Rob Miller said...

Peace comes from victory Brian. It isn't attained from dealing with Fascist regimes, especially when they're ideologically motivated. You will find this out.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Hm... forcefully put, but mostly true. Although I am not sure Mossadegh loved Moscow that much, but he definitely leaned toward it.

Proudscalawag said...

Like it came in 1967? What did I miss, General MacArthur?

Proudscalawag said...

Like anyone else, he got help where he could. I think Rob here is full of CIA/Cold War boilerplate. Neither Mossadegh nor anyone would have ever allowed any Soviet troops in their country, and if the Reds attacked that would have started at least another Korean-type war.

Proudscalawag said...

Thanks. Have written it down for googling later.

Dick Stanley said...

The "best deal" would have been to leave the sanctions in place. They were strangling Iran's economy. But Our Little Barry couldn't have that. He "negotiates like a Care Bear." Actually I think even a Care Bear would have been tougher.


And what is this "trench" reference? Is this guy a WW1 veteran? He's so far removed from military service he has no idea what to say.


I'll leave his history lesson to someone else. Looks to me like a rhetorical diversion to get away from mentioning the sanctions. And STFU is typically lefty. Agree with them or STFU. They don't debate. They win, you lose.

Dick Stanley said...

Stupid video. How many shots of the ambulance and mailbox do they need?

Dick Stanley said...

Civility, bud. That's what you're missing.

Proudscalawag said...

Oh, really? A great example all you righties gave us as you tore through civility while too many of us persisted in being idiotic schoolmarms! Don't like your own medicine, eh?
Besides, I used MacArthur's name for a reason: remember 'there is no substitute for victory' and all that?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I wish I knew. The subtleties of TV reportage escape me.

Proudscalawag said...

COPULATE the Urban Dictionary! I mean it in the Southern sense as applied by ex-planters to pro-Union and/or antislavery Southern whites during Reconstruction. So take THAT job and shove it!

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Gentlemen!

I was afraid this thread will be transformed into the usual GOP - Dem fight arena. Please refrain from this verbal butchery or I shall be forced to close the thread down.

Thanks.

Rob Miller said...

What did you miss? Oh, just common sense and a knowledge of what you're talking about.



To answer your inane question, peace almost always results from total victory. Ask the Germans and Japanese. It certainly would have for Israel after 1967, had several things happened.



(1)If Israel had done the sensible thing and repatriated the Jordanian citizens living on stolen land in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (they refer to themselves as 'Palestinians now) back across the river to their home country. And yes, they were all official Jordanian citizens.


2) If after the Khartoum resolution by the Arab League, Israel had formally annexed these areas.


4) If the Labor government had listened to Arik Sharon (Z"l) and not tied up IDF troops on the so-called 'Bar Lev line' and the war of attrition but had kept them mobile and out of missile range. And especially if Israel had responded in full force to any missile attacks from the Egyptian side instead of responding with weakness. That weakness caused the 1973 war.



5) If Golda Meir and her cabinet, who had intel of the coming attack in 1973 had unleashed the IDF and pre-empted it instead of waiting to be hit. That's why Golda and her team resigned in shame after the war.


3) If, once the Egyptians were defeated, the Labor government had allowed Arik Sharon to complete his victory over the hopelessly trapped Egyptian 3rd Army rather than forcing him to let them go and march back into Cairo with their arms intact so that the Egyptian people understood the nature of their defeat rather than the Egyptian government being able to claim it as a 'victory'



Syria, OTOH experienced that defeat thanks to Raful Eitan's (Z"l) leadership and heroism,and Israel has had little trouble with them since, although occasionally they required a reminder.



Half a victory never brings peace. Real victory always does - provided you keep our swords sharp and are prepared to defend it.

Proudscalawag said...

OK. My apologies, SImon; let's see if MR. Stanley adds his.

Rob Miller said...

Help for WHAT, Brian? Turning his country over to Moscow and helping to damage the security of Israel and every other nation in the region? And what proof do you have that Mossadegh would never have allowed Soviet 'advisers' into Iran to consolidate incorporating Iran into the Soviet bloc? Gee, that never ever happened in history, did it? And without the US doing anything about it?

Your problem, Brian is the same problem that exists with a lot of people whom favor snarky sophistries and deconstructionism to back them up.
You have no real sense of history or ability to recognize evil until it's too late. Then when things follow their natural course, the mess you make is left for others to clean up.

Rob Miller said...

Count me as one of the one percent. The Fascist millenarian regime in Iran will not be deposed, now that they have billions of dollars to consolidate their regime. You forget, they will use any means necessary to hold power.

Among other things, the Iranian dissidents now know Obama won't support any political reform , And neither will the EU,,,they'll be too busy making deals to enrich the regime and themselves.

Rob Miller said...

You malign a great man who was not perfect but whom was worth a thousand of you and your kind. STFU.

Rob Miller said...

Good one, Dick! Well said,

Rob Miller said...

Obama will NEVER use the U.S. military against Iran 1) This is his signature achievement out of the mess he created in the ME, Scalawag. Using the military would be an admission that it was a stupid deal all along. Based on previous performance, he'll never do that unless Iran openly attacks the U.S. and he has no choice. He certainly won't use it if Iran attacks Israel. He's already said so.

2) Obama and Soros have created a far Left, virulently anti-war Democrat party.

3) No matter what, Obama won't attack Iran because it might help Israel..again, unless Iran directly attacks America and he has no choice.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

That was a misunderstanding of what I said, Rob. I meant only the burrowing under activities. Obama or not, these should be started in earnest.

Rob Miller said...

Slicha, Habibi

SnoopyTheGoon said...

No probs at all.
Best.

Proudscalawag said...

At that time we sure as hell WOULD do something about it! Mossadegh was not a stupid man and why would he have any less national pride than any other Iranian? THAT makes no sense!! I've read history for fifty years and more, so STFU with YOUR neocon ahistoricity, you great big ignorant gluteal opening you!!

Proudscalawag said...

Old Harry got him right. The American Coriolanus, he once said. You've heard of Coriolanus and his author?