Criticizing NY Times OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman

[johnkarls]

.
Criticizing NY Times OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman

Normally, I don’t like to criticize Thomas Friedman because I usually agree with what he says and, in general, he is one of my heroes.

In addition, I appreciate that the purpose of Friedman’s Sep 22nd OpEd that follows below, is to “take the Obama Administration to school” on their naïvete in dealing with the Iranians – particularly as regards trying to negotiate without being willing to impose harsh sanctions with a “coalition of the willing” (though he doesn't call it that) if Russia and China block U.N. action AND ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITHOUT HAVING “ON THE TABLE” THE THREAT OF ISRAELI MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

Nevertheless, Friedman’s article (in my not-so-humble opinion) is disastrous in two respects –

First, it assumes that Israel is incapable of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities without American assistance and that assumption may well not be true!!!

Second, even if it is true, why would Thomas Friedman, whose column is published and discussed widely in the Arab world, want to be the “authoritative source” that can be cited for the oft-heard assertion that America is a mere “cat’s paw” for Israel???

With respect to the first, if Israel is to land commando teams simultaneously at 500 Iranian nuclear sites simultaneously and hold them a sufficient number of minutes for explosive teams to descend the elevators (since most of the facilities are purposely buried deeply enough that the world’s largest conventional bombs cannot affect them), then, yes, Israel might benefit marginally from additional American intelligence and, yes, Israel might benefit marginally from re-fueling at American bases in Iraq and/or Afghanistan rather than establishing their own temporary bases in some desert wasteland(s) either inside and/or outside Iran (similarly to the way President Carter established a temporary American military base in the Iranian desert in 1979 during his aborted military attempt to free the American hostages at our embassy in Tehran).

But why should Friedman want to trumpet that American assistance might have some value??? And why should he want to foster the impression that such assistance is all that important???

With respect to the second point, why should Friedman want to reinforce the impression/misimpression in the Muslim world that America is a mere tool of Israeli foreign policy???

I would feel a lot better of I knew that Friedman was so flustered and aghast at how serious the situation is that he just “lost his head”!!!

Respectfully submitted,

John K.


*************************************************************
NY Times OpEd – 22 September 2009

Cracks in Iran’s Clique
By Thomas L. Friedman

For the first time since Iran began enriching uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapon, we have a glimmer of hope for a diplomatic solution to this problem — as long as we are not too diplomatic, as long as the Iranian regime is made to understand that biting economic sanctions are an absolute certainty and military force by Israel is a live possibility.

The reason we now have a slight chance — and I really emphasize slight — for a negotiated deal is because Iran’s nuclear program has always been a survival strategy for Tehran’s ruling clique: what Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment, calls “the small cartel of hard-line clerics and nouveau riche Revolutionary Guardsmen who run Iran today.”

After stealing June’s elections, this ruling cartel is now more unpopular and illegitimate than ever. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot hold a rally in Tehran without hearing “death to the dictator” chants more than “death to America.” As a result, his government can ill afford real biting sanctions that would make life in Iran not only politically miserable but even more economically miserable — and his dictatorial clique even more unpopular.

I wouldn’t exaggerate this because this regime has never minded inflicting pain on its people, but this time it may be more vulnerable. That is why we may be in a position to say to the Iranian regime that continuing to grow its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium outside international controls, and suffering real economic sanctions, could threaten its survival more than it would help.

On Oct. 1, William Burns, the American under secretary of state, will join diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China for talks with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator to see whether any deal is possible.

While real sanctions are necessary to exploit this moment, they are not sufficient. We also need to keep alive the prospect that Israel could do something crazy. I don’t favor Israeli military action against Iran and hope we’re telling Israel that privately. But I do believe that U.S. officials, particularly the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, need to stop saying that publicly. Gates is a smart power player. He knows better. If any U.S. official is asked for an opinion on whether Israel should be allowed to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, there is only one right answer: Refer them to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2005 comment that Israel “might well decide to act first” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and say nothing else. Why should we reassure Iran?

I would hope by now that the murderous crackdown on Iran’s mass democracy movement by the country’s oil-funded ruling cartel would have removed the last scales from the eyes of those Iran watchers who think this is simply a poor, misunderstood regime that really wants to repair its relations with the West, and we just have to learn how to speak to it properly. This is a brutal, cynical, corrupt, anti-Semitic regime that exploits the Palestinian cause and deliberately maintains a hostile posture to the West to justify its grip on power. A regime that relates to its own people with such coercive force is not going to be sweet-talked out of its nuclear program. Negotiating with such a regime without the reality of sanctions and the possibility of force is like playing baseball without a bat.

The U.S. is being advised to explore a variety of sanctions, including encouraging capital flight from Iran, thereby creating a run on the Iranian currency. It is also considering a global ban on companies doing business with Iran’s oil industry, which would be a big blow to the regime, because its oil industry — which provides the vast majority of government revenues — needs modernizing and that requires foreign technological help and financing.

By improving relations with Russia, President Obama has done a good job of increasing his leverage with Iran. But as the negotiations begin, there is another dimension that we have to keep in mind: Obama officials want to be careful not to say that all they care about is a deal that neutralizes Iran’s nukes, and, if we get that, we have no problem with those in power in Tehran. That would be a rebuff of Iranian democrats. This will get tricky.

“The Obama administration must reconcile how to deal with a disgraced regime, which presents urgent national security challenges, while at the same time not betray a democratic movement whose success could have enormously positive implications for the U.S.,” said Sadjadpour.

“If we neglect to be vocal about human rights,” he added, “our message to the Iranian people is ‘We don’t care about you. We only care about nukes.’ Ultimately, it has to be Iranians themselves who change their history. We can’t want it more than they do. But it should be a U.S. foreign policy imperative not to do anything to deter the green movement’s success or alter its trajectory. We cannot forget that the underlying problem we have with Iran has more to do with the character of its regime than its nuclear ambitions.”
.