Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Marco Rubio on the Iran Deal
A few days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg published the transcript of his interview with Marco Rubio in the Atlantic. I won’t try to summarize it, because I found the whole thing interesting — which is noteworthy in itself. It isn’t easily reduced to a soundbite, because he’s actually making arguments.
I don’t want to prejudice your views unduly, but there’s no reason for me not to say that Rubio seems to me in much better touch with reality than the other candidates have so far. He’s not saying things that make him (and by implication America) sound insane. He’s not scoring cheap points. He’s not talking about himself. He’s answering the questions directly. He’s obviously aware what he would inherit if he were elected.
The interview goes well beyond the Iran deal. Here’s the final paragraph:
[Obama] is the guy who was going to get us out of these conflicts, but now he has been pulled back in, and he’s trying to do it in the most limited way possible. But this is ending up making it worse, not better, because what’s happening now in Iraq is people are looking at these limited air strikes and saying, “This is not American power. We know what American power really looks like, and this isn’t it.”
I read this interview; I didn’t watch it. So I’m fairly sure that I’m responding to something beyond his looks and his charm. What he’s saying makes sense.
Read it and tell me what you think.
Published in Elections, Foreign Policy, General
I am not surprised that an authoritarian regime experiences stability. I would argue that Iran was not all that stable during its first ten years, considering the war with Iraq during the 1980s.
The issue with Iran is that it is not content to stay within its own borders. It actively seeks to export its ideology and revolution. It has played a large role in destabilizing Lebanon, and now Yemen. Argentina is still dealing with the after effects of the Buenos Aires bombing in the 1990s (although the political turmoil there is from the making of their own politicians). Iran also manufactured and exported to Iraq the material necessary to make explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), which were used to kill US troops.
I did not read anything in the interview that made me think Marco Rubio discounted Iran as an irrational actor. If anything, he understands how rational and canny they have been during these negotiations.
Sometimes, but this was an encounter on Twitter, which anyone can have without getting up from his or her sofa.
It was, however, a surprising exchange.
Obviously, you should look at every other regime you call authoritarian in the Middle East. Tell me again about stability. (You are right about the start–mot regimes are really unstable when attacked, though…)
Agreed. That the US is not extracting a price for all this war surprises me until I talk with Americans.
To some extent, I agree. But I do not see the evidence that he understands what changes need to be made to how America approaches foreign policy. That is a matter of some importance…
Re: the text in bold above – This falls under the heading of “No <redacted>, Sherlock.”
Your assumption that Americans somehow can’t grasp the realities of foreign regimes, states or cultures is really exposing your own cultural bias. America has not been mired in over 2,000 years of looting, larceny, rape, pillaging and the annexation of its neighboring states that many in Europe and the Middle East have engaged in or been subject to, so forgive us if we sometimes can’t appreciate this prioritization of stability over tyranny.
Tyrannical regimes are often stable because the fear they put into their citizens – The former Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, China. Very “stable” all of them. “Stable” is a ridiculous point to bring up in the context of this discussion because it implies the Iranian regime is doing something right and governing in a logical and benevolent way, and inferring that their tyrannical authority has not been challenged – which it has. Your suggestion that it is more stable also flies in the face of other states in the region that have been more stable than Iran – Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. among others.
The current Iranian regime is one bent on the destruction of its enemies including America, the Great Satan. Most Americans, Mssrs. Obama and Kerry excluded, do not take this as empty rhetoric or bluster. If Europeans and others in Iran’s more immediate neighborhood wish to do so, then it will probably fall on America to save your collective bacon once again.
I’d like to hear about American strategy regarding Saudi Arabia when the house of Saud changes hands. My very limited understanding is that the king and his immediate successor are old. In light of new pressures upon that government, thanks to Iran, can we assume the Saudi government and borders will remain stable through the next decade?
Mr. Penfold,
Yes, regime change was realistic up into the ’80s. Maybe there was an opening up to 2009, while Mr. W Bush seems to have scared Iran somewhat.
Of course, America should have never allowed the Ayatollahs of Rocknrolla to get to their current job in the first place.
Mr. Obama, you have to believe, has no desire to help Iran grow more powerful. He hopes, like all educated men do, that people become moderate when they see advantage.
I am afraid an arms race is possible & Americans are not able to move events as they should. I would rather Iran not get an atomic bomb, because the risks are indeed terrible.
American foreign policy should take regime analysis seriously & learn what weaknesses might allow a shrewd president to prevent the Atomic Ayatollahs from becoming atomic.
The kinds of threats necessary & the gradual improvement of America’s position in the Middle East–hard to know–or even guess at–because at this point it looks like either Iran or IS is getting stronger. The ground of this problem is, no one knows what America wants or will allow. Conservatives keep blaming Mr. Obama & not acknowledging any of his thinking–except if they accuse him of being evil!–because they do not want to admit: 1. Conservatives only attract the nation’s attention through the GOP; 2. The GOP has failed in the Middle East; 3. America has therefore had neither success nor consistency in foreign affairs.
Libya, Syria and Egypt were for the most part stable for decades until the Arab Spring. A great deal of their instability occurred when their traditional backers decided not to back them anymore, and outside actors became involved. Some of those regimes (the al-Assad family and Qaddafi) pre-dated the regime in Iran. Iran had some upheaval in 2009, but weathered it.
Hmm, isn’t this sort of how the plot to your book “Lion Eyes” unfolded? Tee, hee.
Mr. Watt, you fail to understand what I am telling you: Stable government & good government have little in common. You may disagree–but the assumptions are your own.
I deny that the UAE, Saudi or Jordanian regimes have anything like the Iranian stability.
I did not say–your assumptions again–that Iran has not faced internal challenges.
I will leave aside your very vulgar concluding remark. You first need to read what I write, as opposed to your assumptions, then complain about it. The Iranian regime has not shown any evidence that it prioritizes war on America or Israel to its survival.
I’m American, and tend to agree that Americans are quite poor at this.
America hasn’t existed for 2,000 years, so obviously not.
Many American foreign policy-makers have indeed placed a great priority on “stability” in foreign policy, and often rightly so.
It doesn’t imply this.
It doesn’t imply this, either.
This isn’t so. Obama was elected twice. His foreign policy may be one with which we deeply disagree, but there is ample evidence that voters approve of it, and do not at all believe that this is true of Iran. This seems to me evidence that Titus is correct: Americans are not particularly good at evaluating regimes that are very different from their own.
This comment doesn’t quite make sense. You’re speaking to a person, not to “Europe and others in Iran’s more immediate neighborhood.”
That is an issue North Korea watchers have to look at too. North Korea has a lot of bluster about turning Seoul into a “Sea of Fire.” Their rhetoric is mostly farcical. But sometimes, they sink a ship (Cheonan, 2010), or shell an island (YP-do, 2010), or like happened just recently, they plant land mines in South Korea. North Korea prioritizes regime survival, but it can still cause a lot of damage. In this regard Iran is very similar.
1. To say that regimes were stable if propped is to say, they were ready to collapse. Regimes stand on their own or do not. Iran does.
Egypt has a regime to talk about–but it is a military oligarchy that obviously has almost no popular support & could be toppled. Even at that, its only proof of stability is that assassinated rulers do not lead to regime collapse. That cuts both ways, though.
Syria & Libya had no regime but tyranny. The tyrannies are somewhat stable, but not really. First serious guerrilla challenge & the existential crisis came. At least in Syria the father left the tyranny to his son–there’s the beginning of dynasty…
So I think you need to distinguish regime stability from whether one given regime does survive or not.
Claire,
It’s easy to dissect sections of what I’m saying and attack clauses as stand-alone statements. By doing so, you obscure the point I was making and the context in which I was making it.
Cheers.
I think we may be splitting hairs a bit on the definition of a tyranny or a regime. A regime can be tyrannical. A tyranny is a regime.
All of the regimes stated above were stable, until they were not. This was due to uprisings, civil strive, etc. I think outside intervention in the regimes cannot be understated. US and NATO airpower in Libya, and the Sunni states with money and arms in Syria, not to mention the porous border Turkey maintained.
The last time Iran had a major existential threat due to an outside power was in the 1980s. No one intervened in 2009 to help the student protestors.
The Iranians are playing more than one long term game at once, and they all will be significantly advanced by the end of sanctions which they have now achieved.
One is the reconstitution of the Persian Empire. They’re on track in Iraq, Syria is coming along nicely. Obama has endorsed them as regional hegemon, though the Turks probably want to say something about that. Their now legalized ballistic missile capability comes in here, with possible force projection to Europe and the Indian subcontinent.
One is elimination of Israel. The IRGC now has a much bigger budget. Look for strategically significant Hezbollah missile upgrades. Again, Syria is coming along nicely, and Iran now has the money to be a player in the West Bank and Jordan. The SS300 antiaircraft systems they seem to be shopping for will complicate an Israeli attack significantly.
And one is the Great Satan. The IRGC is building up its capacity in South and Central America. Iranian ballistic missiles based there, anyone? EMP, anyone?
Claire: This isn’t so. Obama was elected twice. His foreign policy may be one with which we deeply disagree, but there is ample evidence that voters approve of it, and do not at all believe that this is true of Iran.
A majority of Americans in recent polls are against the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Both Kerry and Obama have characterized the “Death to America” demonstrations as just something that the leadership in Iran does to appease their populace. In the context of the nuclear deal and more current events and comments by Kerry and Obama, I stand by what I said.
What do you think constitutes regime stability? Broad support, or at least acquiescence from most sectors of society is essential. What other factors do you propose?
Let me first get to the other thing: Sure, tyranny is a kind of regime. I just wanted to make that clear–you know, 250 words…–tyranny is really unstable because it is nothing else. Dynasty is a step forward to stability. But a more serious step is the decrease of terror. What Middle Eastern regime is stable without terror? What regime is working on its own increased stability? (Again, excluding Israel.)
Now, I think we’re agreed that regimes which seem stable because of American props are not in themselves stable. America needs no one’s propping. I live in Romania–the regime is reasonably stable, but owes some of its stability to the EU & Nato. It is not growing more stable–like all these Middle Eastern regimes, propped for so long, which have not thus been made more stable, but weaker, less stable actually. It is how easy they fell into chaos that is telling.
Claire & all,
At this point I must inform that I am more than a little nauseated at the special pleading going on for Iran. About a week ago a single religious Jew who had a history of mental illness and violent acts stabbed somebody in the Gay Pride parade in Israel. This was inflated by the left wing press into an incident of international importance. Israel has a population of over 8 million I think it has the right to have one lunatic.
Meanwhile on a weekly basis Iran has been holding public executions, usually hangings, in front of football stadium sized crowds. The crimes are being Gay, being an Apostate (any Muslim converting to Christianity), or just plain Infidelity (always a women). This is a barbarian regime. The people of Iran would like nothing better than to be rid of it and 2009-10 proved this. Millions of people in the streets for over 6 months being beaten, gassed, and shot. They are a well educated populace in comparison to most of the other Muslim states. There is no reason that they could not handle democracy.
This deal will insure the present regime’s tyrannical hold on its own people. Any illusions about the nature of the Iranian regime are counter productive. After regime change I will be more than interested in the qualities of the Iranian people but not until then.
Regards,
Jim
So the factors are–aside from terror–1. Passive support from the majority. (Where there is one, or something like the majorities in the powerful minorities…) 2. A relationship between the state (which is just an instrument of rule) & the regime (which is the rule) that is adequate to domestic problems (this varies a lot with the circumstances). 3. The military power of the rulers to fend off foreigners. (This is not about whether you win all your wars or even any–but about whether the regime will fight to defend itself. The more consensus the regime has, the more this matters, usually.) 4. The ability in the rulers to generate the kind of loyalty & competence they need for their kind of rule. This of course has nothing to do with legitimacy or anything like that. (These are rather more complicated matters–one moves gradually from regime analysis & political psychology. I guess the connection is obvious in a tyranny. But at the same time, Americans keep changing their presidents, & yet people across the world obsess over the nature of each one…) 5. Good government in the basic sense of administration. 6. Active consent on the part of parts of the population important politically, whether or not they are free. 7. Finally, there is something harder to discuss, but essential to the discussion–faith. All of politics turns on the origin of law & that is not separable from the question of divine justice…
I would not assume this, myself.
Really? If so, I take that back. Which polls are you looking at? The last ones I saw seemed to be suggesting “unease” or “don’t know” — but not against.
I think when talking about stability we should keep the following analogy in mind. A bowling ball sitting on the floor is as stable as one sitting up high on a shelf. The difference between them does not exist in their stability but in the consequences of their instability. The bowling ball on the floor will roll around some when disturbed. The one on the shelf can crash down and kill you.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265
See page 6 in the embedded pdf:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/cnn-orc-poll-data-july-28-6-am-embargo/index.html
Rubio:
The Iranians have long characterized Israel as a state sponsor of terrorism and itself terrorist. Did Kerry tacitly assent to this? Was not satisfactorily defining terrorism for the purposes of this agreement yet another unforced error? Unfortunately, both are plausible.
The President of the United States is now engaging in good old fashioned Jew-baiting not unlike that which impelled William F. Buckley Jr. to sever relations with Joseph Sobran and explain himself at great length. That set the stage for the delegitimization of anti-Semitism on the Right.
That never happened on the Left. The White House is now employing tactics which legitimize anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Rubio:
Senator Schumer would have to be very actively putting pressure on Democrats to reach a veto-proof majority in the Senate. So far he has not been. IIUC 44 House Democrats would have to cross the aisle to uphold a veto; so far that looks to be very unlikely.
Schumer gets his noble gesture (he seems to have cleared it with the White House anyway) and since the President gets what he wants, all will be forgiven to the future Senate Mxxority Leader.
Some time thereafter ISIS beheaded a Japanese hostage. I’d forgotten all about the Tojo apologist. He sent me a message: “Don’t you miss Tojo now?”
No. I don’t miss Tojo. No one (outside of Japan)misses Tojo. And if your tweeting Tojoist speaks for a significant number of Japanese, then life could become more interesting than we would want. If the Japanese were to seriously re-arm-i.e. build carrier task forces and submarine fleets,build an air force that included strategic bombers,and manufacture nuclear weapons deliverable by land,air,and sea-then everyone in the Asia-Pacific region,never mind other regions-would feel more threatened. Heaven knows what kind of arms race that would lead to.
On the economic front, Asian demand for Ex-Lax would most certainly plummet.
Add Inida and Tawian into that mix.
I have always thought we should make a Pacific NATO alliance. India, Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, & Japan maybe throw inNew Zealand and Thailand into the mix. I have always thought we are ideologically a lot more closer to a lot of the first word Pacific Rim nations than we now are to European nations. They are also better allies to us than western European nations (the exception being the UK who is a great Allie).
This interview reinforces my already favorable opinion of Marco Rubio. He comes across as a man who has given serious thought to this Iranian “deal”. I’m not sure the same could be said for the current administration.
Well, SEATO was created back in the mid-50s and disbanded in 1977. It was formed primarily to stop the further spread of communism in that theater. Given the saber rattling of China recently (including the possible creation of artificial islands as possible military staging areas), might be a good idea to have a similar more encompassing defense pact with India, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea among others apart from individual commitments to come to the defense of respective countries.
It was disturbing to see recent poll indicating that the Japanese don’t think very highly of Americans.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/07/japan-us-relations-survey/25351323/
Not a good foundation for a future alliance. Love Taiwan though. India could develop into a major counterweight to China perhaps? Do we work hard to make that happen? (I would like to see if India can substitute for China in making inexpensive goods. Feasible?)