Big Think

Another Friedman Special

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman rarely disappoints when it comes to inane, or even spurious arguments and ideas, but in his latest column, he demonstrates such a lack of understanding of not just diplomacy, his subject of the day, but also of how the world has changed (beyond its now flatness), that one has to wonder if his peripatetic lifestyle has taught him anything about the way all those foreigners he meets actually think. Continuing to view the world through the myopia of his all too Western eyes, Tom's brilliant new concept is that "this is not the great age of diplomacy." Why? Because, Tom tells us, we (the West, or America to be specific), can no longer reliably instruct allies and enemies to do as we say, or, to use another of his folksy analogies, "to pull a lever." Presumably Mr. Friedman's idea of the great age of diplomacy was when the great powers, for example Britain, France, the Soviet Union or the United States, could do as they wished; install and remove governments at will, negotiate crippling treaties with their clients, and all but steal the natural resources and wealth of underdeveloped countries with few or no consequences. Tom bemoans the fact that today is an age of "snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats" but he forgets that without generations of rifles, tanks, and omnipresent navies, the great powers' diplomats could never have succeeded in maintaining, as he puts it unashamedly, "solid client states." I'm sorry, however, to report that most people on the planet are no longer particularly keen on their countries being or becoming "client states" of the United States, no matter how benign our intentions are towards those countries. Nor are most people on the planet eager to see their leaders ask how high when told to jump, whether by a U.S. diplomat, general, or admiral. It is no longer the "great age of diplomacy," it seems, not because diplomacy is ineffective but because diplomacy, as Mr. Friedman and many others in the establishment define it, is not (and never was) diplomacy at all. Mr. Friedman states in his column that of the four countries that are our "major problems," Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, two are client states that "cannot deliver" and two are enemy countries that "won't deliver." Well, perhaps the two client states would rather not be client states who must deliver to us what we demand of them, and the two enemies won't deliver because what we demand of them, getting them "to change their behavior along the lines we seek," is, as evident from the tone of a statement such as that, demeaning, insulting, and carries with it a whiff of moral superiority that in a flat world, Tom, reaches every corner of the planet. North Korea's "defiant missile launch" is bad behavior, our development of new generations of weapons isn't; Iran enriching uranium to a low level suitable for reactor fuel as is their right under the NPT is bad behavior; Western nuclear programs, including developing new nuclear weapons which is not their right under the same NPT, isn't. Our threats of and actual military action across the globe, excuse me, flat world, is not bad behavior, but other countries that defy our will need to change their behavior. That moral superiority, exhibited even in President Obama's much vaunted recent video message to the Iranian people and government, a message that the U.S. media largely praised (and characterized the Iranian response to it as a rebuff), was invisible to the likes of Mr. Friedman, but all to obvious to the Iranian government (whose response was actually anything but a rejection of goodwill on the part of the U.S.) Mr. Obama quite rightly delivered a respectful message to Iran, changing the tone of American rhetoric, but while he reached out to Iran with praise for its culture and history, he also suggested that Iran would have to behave according to Western standards, according to our determination of what is good behavior, actually, before it could take its rightful place among the family of nations. Iran's response? It is best summed up at the end of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's long speech in Mashhad the day after Mr. Obama's message was aired: "If you change, our behavior will change too. If you do not change, our nation will not change, as it has only become more and more experienced, patient, and powerful in the past thirty years." Just as we would like to see other governments change their behavior, many of those other governments would like to us change our behavior. How hard is that to understand? Mr. Friedman's simplistic belief that our "problem countries" such as Iran have survival strategy that depends on hostile relations with America is belied by Ayatollah Khamenei's statement that Iran is willing to engage and negotiate, and yes, even change (something Iran has rarely, if ever conceded). It is further belied by arch conservative President Ahmadinejad's statements that Iran is interested in relations with the U.S. but only on the basis of respect. (Pulling levers on demand, I imagine, does not qualify as a basis for respect in Mr. Ahmadinejad's mind.) If, in Mr. Friedman's imaginary school of foreign service (where he has fantasized about placing President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as students), diplomats are taught that their job is to persuade a foreign leader "to pull this or that lever" (much like a laboratory animal in behavioral studies) and then "figure out what to do next," we will never be able to protect our national and strategic interests with any measure of success, which is, after all, the point of diplomacy. If instead the students at Friedman's school are taught that it's not about pulling levers or demanding things of foreigners, but about negotiating according to the culture and customs of both parties, of understanding that problems cannot be solved in this "flat world" without considering the vital interests of all parties, then we might have a shot. It's not, as Mr. Friedman fears, about adopting a "middle ground," it's about fundamental change, as Mr. Obama promised in his campaign and as he is slowly, but surely, delivering. Iran, for one, appears to be patiently waiting.

April 15, 2009, 12:38 PM

What Gulf?

The United States, which under President Obama has promised to engage Iran on the basis of mutual respect, and which under both presidents Bush and Obama has professed its admiration for the Iranian people and their culture (if not for their government), this week announced the appointment of Dennis Ross as the point person in charge of the Iran portfolio at the State Department (but curiously not the White House). In its announcement, however, the State Department referred not to Iran, but to some fictitious place it calls "The Gulf," a body of water not found on any reputable map. In doing so, the State Department undoubtedly knew it would tweak the noses of the Ahmadinejad government as well as the Ayatollahs and leadership in Tehran, but it should have also known that Iranians everywhere, of every political stripe, inside and outside Iran, would be equally incensed at what they have perceived over the last few years as an attempt by the U.S. (and its Arab allies) to diminish, distort, and tarnish their history, which they view as glorious and deserving of admiration. As citizens of the only nation in the region with a history (as a nation) longer than 100 years, the name "Persian Gulf" is an incredibly sensitive issue for Iranians, and regardless of political opinion or leanings, they take great offense at any attempt to change a historic name they take great pride in. Leaving aside the issue of whether Ambassador Ross is the best choice given Iranian (and some Arab) distaste for his perceived biases, it would behoove the State Department spokesmen and women to carefully consider the sensitivities of the Iranian people (as well consulting a map or an encyclopedia) in future references to the region. Only if the U.S. is sincere in its desire to engage Iran, and to be a friend to (at least) the Iranian people, that is.

February 25, 2009, 5:28 PM

Master of Delusion

With President Obama making Middle East peace a welcome top priority early in his presidency (and dispatching the highly respected George Mitchell to the region this week), analysts, "experts," and opinion-makers are falling over themselves to offer their two cents on what will work, and what won't. Tom Friedman, ever anxious to give advice, writes in the New York Times that a "five state solution" is the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His imaginary letter from King Abdullah to President Obama is nice enough, but even Abdullah, mindful that Arab populations are furious with their leaders for having either enabled the Israeli war against Gaza or for showing virtually no support for impoverished Gazans under siege, would recognize that Friedman's solution is no solution at all. The reality is that without Iran and Syria, no real peace will be possible in the Middle East. Abdullah's supposed proposal (penned by Friedman) includes Jordan and Egypt in the "five-state" mix, both authoritarian countries that have close relations with the U.S. (and Israel) and whose governments are hardly popular with their people, unpopular with Iranians and Syrians, and collaborators as far as some Palestinians are concerned. Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are supported by Iran and Syria, are perhaps the most important parties to a comprehensive Middle East peace (that includes Lebanon and the Shebaa Farms question), so ignoring those two countries in any negotiations for a settlement between Israel and Palestine (and Lebanon) is rather pointless. (One would hardly expect Mitchell to make his first stop in Tehran, but the exclusion of Damascus from his itinerary, where we actually have an embassy, seems rather short sighted too, given that Hamas' political leadership is based there.) Keen as Abdullah might be, as is Friedman, to neutralize Iranian and Syrian influence in the region and on the peace effort, he knows that ignoring them is delusional at best. Hezbollah, now a legitimate party in Lebanese politics, is a creation of Iran, and one need only pay attention to one of Sheikh Nasrallah's titles (the leader of Hezbollah) to understand why Iran is crucial to any settlement that involves that group: "Representative of the Supreme Leader of The Islamic Revolution in Lebanon." That Supreme Leader was Ayatollah Khomeini when Hezbollah was created, and today it is Ayatollah Khamenei, which is one reason that wherever one goes in Hezbollah territory in the Levant, one sees posters of both men alongside Nasrallah's. (The Supreme Leader of Iran's title is not, as one might imagine, The Supreme Leader of Iran but The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.) Hamas, which is impossible to defeat militarily (it is not an army; it is a political philosophy as much as a party, and that philosophy can only be defeated if it is shown to be illegitimate or a failure, which so far it hasn't, thanks to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank), and enjoys great support throughout the Muslim world, has Syria and Iran as almost its sole benefactors. Although Hamas the political party will make peace if it is in its interests, and will not always necessarily do Iran's or Syria's bidding, it will be exceedingly difficult to convince its leadership that it must agree to a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel as long as it continues to receive the kind of unfettered support it does from Iran and Syria. It may be distasteful to Abdullah (and of course his friend Friedman) to invite the Iranians and Syrians to the negotiating table, for it would legitimize their involvement in the peace process which the U.S.-allied Arab states, Israel and the U.S. are loath to do, and it may the last thing in the world that will be considered. But sometimes the last thing in the world to consider is the only thing that can actually solve a problem.

January 28, 2009, 12:51 PM

Uh, No "Preconditions"?

Susan Rice, President Obama's new Ambassador the United Nations and a member of the cabinet, today for the first time spoke publicly about the Iran nuclear issue. During the long campaign for the presidency, President Obama repeatedly vowed to begin negotiations, to talk to Iran (even as he backpedaled on tea with President Ahmadinejad), "without preconditions" as he put it. Obama recognized that the failed Bush policy of only agreeing to talks with Iran if they first agreed to what the desired outcome of the negotiations would be for the U.S. (i.e. if they mothballed their uranium enrichment program), had produced no results, and his pledge to change directions had been met with some enthusiasm in Tehran. However, this from Susan Rice: The new US ambassador to the UN said Monday that Washington was committed to direct, "vigorous" diplomacy with Iran over its suspect nuclear program but warned Tehran of increased pressure if it refuses to halt uranium enrichment. Susan Rice told reporters that President Barack Obama's administration looked forward to "engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran, as well as continued collaboration and partnership with" the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany." "We will look at what is necessary and appropriate with respect to maintaining pressure toward that goal of ending Iran's nuclear program," she added following her meeting with UN chief Ban Ki-moon to present her credentials. "Dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council and its continued refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," Rice added. And this from the AP on our very own Huffington Post: But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program. Huh? What happened to talks with "no preconditions"? If this is indeed the Obama doctrine on Iran, then I'm afraid it will, as it has in the past, get us absolutely nowhere with the Iranians. Iran has repeatedly said it will not accept any preconditions for talks, and has repeatedly said it will not suspend uranium enrichment. And the U.S. has to stop pretending that Iran's refusal to abide by Security Council resolutions makes them a rogue state, as if none of our allies have ever refused to comply with UN resolutions (242 anyone?). If the Obama administration is serious about working towards a solution to the Iran problem, it might want to reconsider its approach at the U.N., a place, incidentally, where Ms. Rice can simply walk down a hall and have a chat with the Iranian ambassador anytime she wants.

January 26, 2009, 4:50 PM

Misunderestimating Iran: Week 415

The Bush White House and its State Department, in their final days and even as Hillary Clinton undergoes the confirmation process to become the next Secretary of State, continue to be oblivious to irony, or at least to the almost comical aspects of their records and official statements. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that George Bush specifically denied Israeli requests for assistance in bombing Iran's nuclear sites, instead advising the Israelis that covert activities were underway by the U.S. to "sabotage" Iran's efforts in gaining proficiency in nuclear technology. Given that few native U.S. citizens (and I don't mean American Indian, but Americans who don't also hold Iranian citizenship) roam about Iran, let alone its nuclear sites, at will, one supposes that Iranians working for the U.S. government, either directly or indirectly, were a part of that "sabotage" team. Two days later, Iran announces that it has arrested four Iranians accused of working for the U.S. in attempting to undermine the Islamic government and system. Duh. The Iranians read the New York Times, even if George Bush doesn't. But perhaps the State Department doesn't, either. Where have we heard the phrase "....using charges of violating national security as a pretext for targeting...." before? STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE Alleged U.S. Involvement in Iran Coup Attempt (Taken Question) Question: What is our response to the claim that the United States worked with four Iranians charged with attempting to topple the Iranian government? Answer: Any charge against an Iranian that he/she is working with the United States to overthrow the Iranian government is baseless. In the past, Iran has used similar charges to falsely accuse and detain civil society activists and Iranians working to enhance understanding between our two countries. We urge the government of Iran to adhere to international norms by ending its policy of arbitrarily detaining its citizens or using charges of violating national security as a pretext for targeting any Iranian citizen. 2009/047

January 13, 2009, 8:48 PM