The Debatable Land

Obama and Iran

Jonathan Freedland warns Guardian readers today that Obama is not a dove but, rather, a "smarter hawk". Fine. Here's how he summarises Obama's approach to Iran:

The new disposition on Iran is similarly nuanced. The noises are much less warlike. Obama promises diplomacy and dialogue, and relegates force to where it should be: a last, not a first, resort. But his own advisers counsel that Obama is firm on this matter. He has concluded that Tehran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, not least because it would trigger a regional arms race. He will use negotiation to thwart that possibility. But if that fails, the use of force remains an option.

And that's when the new global context could make all the difference. Imagine if John McCain had toured European capitals, trying to assemble a coalition for strikes against Iran. He'd have barely got a hearing. Two million people would have marched in London waving banners declaring: "We won't get fooled again."

But if Obama were to make the case, explaining that he had seen through the nonsense of Iraqi WMD but that the Iranian threat was real, he would surely earn a very different response. In that sense if no other, armed international action against Iran might be more achievable under an Obama presidency than it would have been otherwise.

So, when you drill down to the bottom of it all, American policy towards Iran actually remains unchanged. Yes, Obama may be quicker to talk to Tehran than his predecessor has been, but to all intents an purposes he shares Mr Bush's fundamental position: Iran is not to be "permitted" to acquire a nuclear weapon and the United States reserves the right to attack Iran to prevent this from happening. Verily, that is change we can believe in.

Now, the best reason for wishing that the Iranians don't get the bomb is indeed the prospect of a regional arms race. But how likely is it that Washington can prevent this from happening? And, indeed, if you were in Iran's position would not the logical response to the threats coming from Washington be to build a bomb? That's not to say that Iran would halt its nuclear programme if Washington played footsie with Tehran; rather it's an observation on the limitations of American power and the fact that, sometimes, promised demonstrations of that power encourage other countries to act in precisely the fashion Washington would prefer them not to act.

Note too, however, the extent to which Freedland is prepared to give Obama a pass on the issue. He may be right to suggest that John McCain could not "sell" the idea of  bombing Iran and that Obama could. But surely the issue is whether it would be right to do so in the first place? In other words, it's the product that counts, not the salesman. But if Freedman is correct then, paradoxically, anyone who thinks attacking Iran is more likey than not to be a counter-productive blunder might have been better off voting for John Sydney McCain than Barack Hussein Obama.

Funny old world, innit?

Learning from Iran

I'm talking about kidneys of course. Over to Alex Tabarrok:

Only one country in the world has eliminated the shortage of transplant kidneys.  Only one country in the world has legalized financial payments to kidney donors.  That country is Iran.

In an important report, transplant surgeon Benjamin Hippen argues that the Iranian system has saved thousands of lives and it should be used if not as model then to inform America's efforts to eliminate its deadly shortage.

Want to solve the organ donor shortage? Learn from Iran and permit donors to be compensated.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: SNP Sympathiser or Labour Agent?

Crivvens. Whatever next? An apology for 1978?

IRAN sought to ally itself with Scotland last night, praising Alex Salmond's administration for its anti-war stance and suggesting Tehran has more in common with Holyrood than Westminster.

Rasoul Movahedian, the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told The Scotsman that Scotland and Iran shared "similar views" on many issues, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and nuclear non-proliferation.

And he said there was "fertile ground" for a stronger relationship with the controversial government of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"I think that Iran and Scotland enjoy similar views on many regional and international topics and issues," he said. "The views and the position of this present government of Scotland pleased many people in Iran and enabled us to make a distinction between Scotland and England."

"We are very much pleased by the views of the present government, (which] is against the war, against chemical weapons, against proliferation, and advocates a world based on peace and friendship, which strives for wellbeing and economic progress.* This provides fertile ground for further works."

Then again, perhaps there are some unfortunate "similar views":

A BISHOP has sparked outrage by claiming gays only attend Holocaust memorials to get sympathy.

The Right Rev Joseph Devine also said parents of homosexual children faced a "nightmare".

Devine, who is Catholic bishop of Motherwell, said: "The homosexual lobby has been extremely effective in aligning itself with minority groups.

"It is ever present at the service each year for the Holocaust memorial - as if to create for themselves the image of a group of people under persecution."

*Hmmm. You couldn't have accused the Labour-Lib Dem administration of striving for that. Thank god our elections were marginally more free than today's poll in Iran. Even then the populace remained cowed and fretful, only barely managing to throw the bums out...

Yanks: Iran Nixes Nukes

If true, this is the best news to come out of Washington in a long, long time. Turns out the Iranians may not be nuts after all. Who knew? The NYT reports:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

“Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might — if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible — prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program,” the estimate states.

America, Hell Yeah...

Like everyone else, I gotta love this Saturday Night Live response to Mahmoud "No gays in Iran" Ahmadinejad.

Hat-tip: GFR

Department of Problem Solving

Ahmadinejad at Columbia:

A) Question: why do you execute homosexuals?

B) Ahmadinejad answers that, well, the US has capitol punishment too...

C) The President then boasts of the efficiency of Iranian government policy: "We don't have homosexuals in Iran like in your country".

UPDATE: CSPAN caller now: "Get some research on this so we can implement it in America..."

Ahmadinejad and Irving

Reasons why jailing David Irving for "Holocaust Denial" was a bad idea, cont.: It allows Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to say that clearly there must be something to this point of view if "researchers" can be imprisoned for pursuing research from a "different perspective". And, of course, implicitly he's arguing that despite all your fancy, high-falutin' talk, you in the west are no better than the rest of us. You censor too.  Tend to the beam in your own eye before looking to the mote in mine etc etc.

Columbia's Persian problem

I would not have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University today, but now that the invitation has been made it should go ahead. In general, however, I agree entirely with Daniel Larison:

Manifestly, the man’s views are very often ridiculous, and he is a ranting demagogue, an Iranian Huey Long with less common sense.  He is, however, a shrewd political operator who knows how play the angles.  To give him a forum is to play into his hands and to treat him as the world leader that he would like to pretend to be.  It flatters his ego, builds up his reputation around the world and strengthens his hand at home.  It makes the task of those who oppose anti-Iranian warmongers at home harder, it helps stoke the fires of Persophobia and it is in itself a colossal blunder on every level.  It is quite one thing to argue that Ahmadinejad is a preposterous demagogue whose rantings pose no threat to anyone but his unfortunate listeners and quite another to pretend that Ahmadinejad is just another citizen in the republic of letters and a participant in free-flowing intellectual debate to whom we issue “sharp challenges,” such as: “Dear boy, wouldn’t you reconsider your slightly troubling claims about the Holocaust?”

The problem with inviting Ahmadinejad is revealed by a simple test: would anyone in an academic institution be willing to vouch for a speaker with similar views if he did not come from a country currently being vilified by our government, or if he were a white European?