Home / General / Rubio and Iran

Rubio and Iran

Comments
/
/
/
629 Views

051315_rubio

Larison is unsparing:

It takes special determination to be as comprehensively wrong about something as Rubio has been about diplomacy with Iran over the last few years. Two years ago, Rubio was feigning interest in negotiations while insisting on maximalist conditions that would have made an agreement impossible. Had the U.S. followed his recommendations, there would have been no deal and Iran’s nuclear program would not be under the significant restrictions now imposed upon it. If the U.S. had demanded “zero enrichment” as Rubio wished, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would not have been shipped out of the country as it has been, but would have remained in Iran’s control and would have continued to expand. A year ago, Rubio was certain that Iran would never abide by any agreement that it made. This month, the IAEA has certified that Iran is in compliance with the agreement, just as it complied with the interim agreement that he also bitterly opposed. Despite his best efforts to tack on irrelevant amendments to the Senate’s oversight legislation to try to sabotage the deal, the deal went forward and has already yielded significant nonproliferation benefits in just its first few months.

Like other Iran hawks, Rubio is reduced to bemoaning non-existent “appeasement” while ignoring the substantial benefits for the U.S. that diplomacy with Iran has already produced.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • so-in-so

    Pretty much the same way the belittled the UN findings in Iraq back in 2003.

    The play book worked then, it will probably work again if an R gets the Oval Office, so why change?

    • timb

      This is true of his base. They literally allow no information into their bubble re: Iran’s compliance

  • Crusty

    This is just a hunch, but I get the sense that Rubio is as clueless, disinterested, anti-intellectual and non-curious on foreign policy and conventions of diplomacy, as George W. Bush, the key difference being he at least believes it is important not to appear that way on the surface. Same goes for Jeb, Trump, Christie and Cruz.*

    *Also just a hunch, but I gather that beyond his narrow talent as a constitutional law super nerd, Cruz is pretty anti-intellectual, or at least postures that way, with the carpet bombing comments and all.

    • Ken

      I think you, and so-in-so above, are selling Rubio short by saying he’s just another GWB. I’m sure that if elected he will find entirely new and exciting ways to FUBAR the country.

      • Lee Rudolph

        I’m sure that if elected he will find entirely new and exciting ways to FUBAR the country.

        You little ray of sunshine, you!

      • Crusty

        I dunno, I haven’t seen anything in his life other than a desire to advance his political career, that demonstrates some sort of interest in foreign affairs.

        • rea

          demonstrates some sort of interest in foreign afairs

          Well, he’s no Mark Sanford.

      • so-in-so

        Well sure, a land invasion of Iran (with Bibi and the Saudis cheering from the sidelines) would be sorta new and different.

        It is still a mid-east war, probably coupled with tax ncutsfor the top earners, more deregulation and killing the ACA, so it’s a mixture of new and old standards.

  • BGinCHI

    Rubio: “Peace is unprofitable.”

  • Rob in CT

    For Republicans, there are two major problems with the Iran deal:

    1) It involved Obama; and
    2) It involved Iran.

    • DrDick

      I would agree. Being comprehensively wrong about the Middle East generally and Iran specifically is pretty much standard Republican orthodoxy and has been since Reagan.

    • Charlie S

      And what’s even worse than it failing is that it’s succeeding. This is their biggest problem of all.

  • Diplomacy?

    Where’s the fun if nobody gets hurt?

    • I think you’ve made the essential point–the GOP is unwilling to accept foreign policy benefits unless they involve both a Republican president and an whuppin’. The fact that they have reduced all political and policy debates, both domestic and international, to a dick measuring contest is, I think, insufficiently appreciated.

      Hell, Donald Trump is winning this thing with a campaign strategy that boils down to, essentially, “I’m alpha as fuck, and the rest of these guys are pantywaists.”

    • Lee Rudolph

      Definitely one of the more violent board games I’ve ever played.

      • Ken

        Especially if you consider what “Germany: A Ruh-Bur; France: A Bur H” meant in real-life terms…

        In a different vein, I have the edition with the cartoon of six sterotypical European rulers sitting around the map-board, with the seventh dead on the floor with a sword in his chest. Avalon Hill knew how to advertise.

        • Robert M.

          There are three major problems with Diplomacy:

          (1) The board is unbalanced. See, for example, the handicap faced by Italian players, especially if Austria-Hungary is intractable.

          (2) A pair of players who agree to play for a joint victory are nearly unbeatable, unless one betrays the other.

          (3) If you’re playing in person, eliminated players are faced with a wait of several hours while the game continues.

          With all of that said, I love it dearly.

          • Scott P.

            Italian politicians have been complaining about their unbalanced starting position since at least 1870.

            • Ahuitzotl

              B.C.

          • sonamib

            Be careful if you talk about unbalancedness in a boardgame forum. You might trigger a flame war between Euro and American games fans.

            Edit: And actually, I think Austria-Hungary has it worse than Italy, they’re way more likely to be dog-piled by everyone else in the beginning. Granted, it’s more difficult to win as Italy but I’ve never played a game to the bitter end.

            • BigHank53

              never played a game to the bitter end

              Avalon-Hill’s unofficial motto.

          • njorl

            “(2) A pair of players who agree to play for a joint victory are nearly unbeatable, unless one betrays the other.”

            Doesn’t every game start with 21 pairs of players agreeing to play for a joint victory?

    • Sev

      Surely, as a pilot, you should appreciate that the young ‘uns need to get in their bombing runs. I mean, ferrying diplomats around is sooo booring.

    • DrDick

      Given that basically none of them have ever served and no one in their families will ever have to do so, insulates Republican politicians from the consequences of their blood thirst.

    • so-in-so

      Diplomacy is too high-brow for today’s GOP. I’m pretty sure they prefer “Risk”.

    • Schadenboner

      You guys are all wrong. They’re all clearly Munchkin players.

  • Derelict

    I wonder how much of this bellicosity stems from the Republican recognition that no Republican president since Lincoln has decisively won a war? Democrats can point to FDR and Truman winning WWII. Republicans have Eisenhower winding Korea down to a stalemate, Nixon allowing Viet Nam to topple, Reagan “winning” Grenada, George H.W. Bush “winning” Desert Storm yet leaving Saddam in power which set the stage for Bush the Dumber to invade Iraq and create the Middle East catastrophe we’re all living with today.

    • rea

      McKinley.

      • mds

        I think we’re supposed to call him “President Denali” now.

        • tomscud

          No, Denali is just a mountain in Alaska.

          • Warren Terra

            Are you sure it isn’t a rierv in Egpty?

          • Thom

            First there is Denali then no Denali then there is.

            • N__B

              There is Denali is there.

    • NonyNony

      George H.W. Bush “winning” Desert Storm yet leaving Saddam in power which set the stage for Bush the Dumber to invade Iraq and create the Middle East catastrophe we’re all living with today.

      What’s really interesting is that Bush the Elder had pretty much finally ended the whole “Republicans don’t win wars” narrative (which I recall being very much in place when Reagan invaded Grenada and when Bush the Elder got Noriega out of Panama). Bush had finally – finally – given the Republicans the victory they had wanted forever.

      And then W had to go junk it and turn it into a failure. Just like everything else he touched.

      • Sev

        Of course you mean Obama- you know, that guy who tanked the economy in ’08.

    • Warren Terra

      It is unjust to George H W Bush, Schwartzkopf etcetera to claim their victory in the First Gulf War was short of decisive. They achieved their stated aims efficiently and with little loss of American life. You can’t blame the later events on their military shortcomings, even though the impetus for the later Bush’s grand Mesopotamian adventure likely started with his father and his father’s administration’s overdoing the monstering of Saddam.

      • so-in-so

        There was the whole “it’s up to the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam” speech, followed shortly by allowing the Iraqi military to crush the Shia in the south…

        Wrong “people”, it seems. Also good reason Cheney’s “throwing flowers” never happened in the rematch.

    • timb

      Few Republicans recognize your critique of the Iraq War (although it’s dead on). The Republicans I know claim the war was won and Obama gave it away because he’s a weak, a weak tyrant

  • Murc

    If the U.S. had demanded “zero enrichment” as Rubio wished, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would not have been shipped out of the country as it has been,

    The standard right-wing response to this is “if you really believe they shipped more than a tiny fraction of what they had out, you’re an idiot.”

    These people.

    • Robert M.

      I mean, it makes sense, as long as you assume (1) no knowledge of nuclear physics, and either (2a) incompetence on the part of the IAEA or (2b) supernatural cunning on the part of Iran.

      And since (1) is regrettably easy to find on both sides of the aisle and both of (2) are implied by the modern right’s flirtation with Bircherism, it’s… not right, obviously, but I understand where it comes from.

      • Warren Terra

        You are omitting the ever-popular insinuation that Obama and liberals generally are colluding with our enemies to denigrate the enormous threats they pose, and are actively hiding the truth. If you buy into such a vision (and a lot of folks on the Right seem to) you can jut ignore any inconvenient facts as being lies cooked up by the Iranians (or other foreign baddie) with the acquiescence of Obama, his administration, the media, etcetera

        • Ken

          So the old saying has to be updated? You’re not paranoid if they are out to get you, or if you can find 27% of the population who believe the same things you do?

        • brewmn

          You are omitting the ever-popular insinuation that Obama and liberals generally are colluding with our enemies to denigrate the enormous threats they pose, and are actively hiding the truth.

          What’s hilarious (or would be hilarious if theses people didn’t hold much/most of the political power in this country) is that they never coherently explain why liberals want Al Quaeda and Iran to defeat us. It seems counter-intuitive that people accustomed to lots of money and vastly greater freedom to live their lives as they choose would prefer being ruled by a bunch of theocratic bullies enforcing 13th-century codes of conduct.

          But I’m a mushy-headed liberal, so what do I know about the secret ways my Dear Leader seeks to destroy the American Way of Life?

          • mds

            It seems counter-intuitive that people accustomed to lots of money and vastly greater freedom to live their lives as they choose would prefer being ruled by a bunch of theocratic bullies enforcing 13th-century codes of conduct.

            And yet, just look at how Republicans vote.

          • so-in-so

            Since we hate America, and all that is good and Christian, we obviously support ISIS and Communism and everything bad. Anything more is overthinking it – remember that these are people who spend money to modify their vehicle so they can “roll coal” to piss off hippies.

      • Sev

        Nuclear what? They have magic centrifuges, dontcha know.

  • Warren Terra

    Larison continues to be an important voice for sanity in America’s foreign relations (see also his continuing refusal to ignore what’s happening in Yemen).

    I still think he’s nutty as a squirrel’s supermarket on some other issues, especially where God is concerned, but he seems to write about such issues much, much less than I remember him doing a few years ago (possibly at that time in a personal blog rather than a paid blogging gig).

    • Rob in CT

      It is jarring to read him if he starts talking about God. Here’s this guy with a substantial body of work on FP that is totally sane and grounded in reality and suddenly he’s like someone else entirely…

      • Mike Furlan

        No he is always “that guy.” He is a self proclaimed proud member of the League of the South. Here is some of the stuff he is proud of:

        ““If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called ‘racists’ and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the [anti-racist] advocates when they peg us as ‘racists’ is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.”
        — Mike Hill, Web essay”
        https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/league-south

        Some police officers in Alabama were kicked of the force when they were found to be members of the League of the South.
        http://www.al.com/news/anniston-gadsden/index.ssf/2015/06/anniston_police_in_suspected_h.html

        What is the point of giving Larison any attention?

  • AMK

    Rubio sings basically the same song on Cuba too, which is maybe not surprising given his background, but still notable given how many deep pockets in the business community want the normal relations and normalized trade.

  • Joshua

    I don’t get the Rubio appeal, other than the fact that he is a good looking guy. I’ve watched two GOP debates, heaven help me, and the stuff that comes out of his mouth is basically Dubya tier. He’s not as polished as his image or supporters make him out to be. He doesn’t seem very smart or intellectually curious. He recites right wing boilerplate verbatim. I know the far right still doesn’t trust him after the immigration bill and he is still bending over backwards trying to prove he’s one of them. It’s not working.

    • Sev

      Well, you just fail to appreciate the beauty of a blank slate, don’t you.

      • creature

        Just because it’s blank, doesn’t mean you gotta write on it! Rubio is about a quintessential American politician, as one could imagine. He’s all about the pandering to anyone who’ll listen, just to further his adherence to ‘Get Elected-Get Re-Elected-Get Paid’.

    • NonyNony

      I’ve watched two GOP debates, heaven help me, and the stuff that comes out of his mouth is basically Dubya tier.

      Keep in mind that conservatives from the most elite to the most working-class loved them some George W Bush for a good six years.

      The only people who like Rubio are the “sane Republicans” who are still trying to find someone to repeat the magic that W had with the rubes (and W was already a re-run of Reagan). They thought it could be Jeb! but it wasn’t. Rubio is their backup plan (and it’s not working either).

      They would have fallen in line behind Cruz by now, if it weren’t for the fact that Cruz appears to have his own agenda and doesn’t seem pliable enough for their tastes. .

    • DrS

      I don’t get the Rubio appeal, other than the fact that he is a good looking guy.

      Gross. Those dead, dead eyes are such a deal killer.

  • Great, but leaves out one big thing, the empowerment of Rouhani’s internationalist faction over the grim reactionaries, which we saw in the Revolutionary Guard’s swift surrender of the US Navy prisoners to the Foreign Ministry. The liberalizers are certainly going to win big in the February elections, which includes a new Council of Experts that will almost certainly name the next Supreme Leader. Obama and Kerry have done more for actual regime change in Iran than any US government since Eisenhower elected the Shah.

    • witlesschum

      Farley’s been calling the reactionaries “Iran’s neocons” on Twitter which is a.) accurate and b.) a nice slam on our neocons.

    • DAS

      Yastreblyansky, you make a very important point. Also consider (quoting from the article)

      The greatest growth in Iranian power in the region came when the U.S. toppled its hostile neighboring regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      If the U.S. had demanded “zero enrichment” as Rubio wished, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would not have been shipped out of the country as it has been, but would have remained in Iran’s control and would have continued to expand.

      It’s almost as if certain people on our political right (c.f. witlesschum’s response below) are doing what they can to bolster Iran’s reactionaries. As I keep wondering, do reactionary elements within the Iranian government have any secret agents within our network of neo-con think tanks (or within the Israeli Likud party)? After all, our neo-cons have had deep ties to elements within Iran ever since Reagan’s people sabotaged the Carter administration in what would turn out to be its final days in order to ensure Iran released US hostages dramatically on Reagan’s inauguration.

      • NonyNony

        The conservatives in Iran have more power when they have an obvious outside enemy looking to persecute Iran. It keeps the population scared and willing to tolerate a lot of bullshit so long as the powers that be can justify if because it “keeps them safe”.

        Exactly the same thing is true for American conservatives. They don’t have to be working together, they just have common incentives to do similar things.

      • mds

        do reactionary elements within the Iranian government have any secret agents within our network of neo-con think tanks

        Not as much as they used to. Dick Cheney is no longer Vice President.

  • Sev

    Anti- diplomacy/ unrealism just seems to have such a venerable history here. Seward’s Folly. League of Nations. Yalta. Even Reagan caught quite a bit of flack for Reykjavik.

  • Pingback: Hating against Islam | Fraser Sherman's Blog()

It is main inner container footer text