Reasons to Be Cheerful
I went to bed last night and woke up this morning feeling remarkably optimistic about a peaceful resolution of the US-Iranian nuke standoff for the first time in weeks. Being smarter than Saddam Hussein, they’ve made sure their overtures are too public to ignore. And the Bush White House may realize that it stands to reap substantial political gains this fall from a deal with Iran. This may seem counterintuitive, but there’s no escaping the fact that
* Most of the American public are war-weary. Only so many people read Pajamas Media every day – or write for it.
* A US-Iranian thaw almost certainly means at least temporary, measurable progress in Iraq, which helps with the war-weariness above.
* Gas prices will come down some.
* George Bush can sell the agreement as a fruit of Republican “toughness,” in the tradition of Reagan’s late rapprochement with Gorbachev.
It will gall a lot of administration opponents. When we suggest that we probably could have had a comprehensive deal with the Iranians three or four years ago, it will fall on deaf ears. When we argue that we wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US and Iraqi lives to get to a place we stood a good chance of coming to more cheaply, we’ll fade into a barely intelligible background buzz in the national conversation. We’ll make the same arguments about the need for the genuine oversight that one-party government prevents, but hey, times are good today!
That will be a price worth paying.
Look, I have become a “Bush hater.” There’s nothing wrong with that. The man’s record on civil liberties, spending, executive aggrandizement and international hubriscompel animus. But better George Bush should look unwontedly effective than the US should launch a ruinous, avoidable war.
Leon Hadar suspects, likewise, that it’s all over but the shoutingwhispering:
Germany as mediator? In the Washington Post there was also a report today that Indonesia Offers to Mediate Talks With Iran. And I thought that it was quite remarkable that Rice and the Bushies while dismissing the Iranian President’s letter didn’t use it as an opportunity for name calling and for making more promises for “regime change” in Tehran. The Bottom Line: The chances for the UN Security Council adopting a resolution to “punish” Iran are close to zero. The costs of a U.S. military attack on Iran are going to be enormous. So the choices facing Washington now are either to maintain the dangerous status quo or to open a dialogue with Iran. Period. Talks with Iran could be happen. If they do, we won’t be hearing about them until they conclude. Memo to intelligence agencies and news organization: Find out if a leading U.S. diplomat had “disappeared” and be suspicious if Condi Rice extends a visit to Turkey or one of the “stans.” Just some ideas…
Dig the picture too. Maybe I’m just prey to a mood here. But I’m going to enjoy it for a bit.
Comment by Nell —
May 12, 2006 @ 9:03 am
News of (and your post about) the second letter was the most cheering thing I’d read in months. I’d feel more confident if we had a brighter Secretary of State, but hey… as you say, anything’s better than more ruinous war.
The Iranians do have a pretty remarkable one-two ploy going. When the admin dismissed Ahmedinejad’s letter because ”it contains no new proposals”, my reaction was ”Jesus, people; here’s the first direct conversation in twenty-five years and you’re expecting it to begin with proposals?”
Apparently the mullahs had predicted the character of the dismissal so well that they were able to come back with ”Proposals? I gotcher proposals right here.”
The clown posse walked right into that one.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
May 12, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Yeah, only DeLong’s Law (”The Bush admin response to anything will be worse than you can predict, even taking into account Delong’s Law”) stands between me and real peace of mind.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
May 12, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Other thought: We’ve found out where the Grown-up Republicans are. They’re in the Islamic Republic.
Trackback by Bigscary —
May 12, 2006 @ 10:08 am
Hear Hear!
Jim Henley on the possibility of a “Nixon-goes-to-China” rapprochement with Iran:
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
May 12, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
My gut says you’re attributing far more rationality to the administration than is warranted.
That said, I hope to god you’re right.
Comment by Frank —
May 12, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
I think this stuff is just for public consumption. The real reason the Bush administration has to abandon the idea of doing anything to Iran is that Chinese President Hu told Bush he would retaliate with nuclear weapons if we tried anything with Iran.
Comment by Nell —
May 13, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
Can anyone point me to any media coverage of the second letter (other than the news itself that Jim links)? I can understand this having been eclipsed by admittedly newsworthy stuff, but am afraid that next week it will be as if the second letter never existed. Particularly if Rove is indicted.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 13, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Nell, I’ve been marveling for the last day or so that it seems to have sunk without a trace, at least in the American media.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
May 14, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Right, and the BBC is busy pushing right back (with an assist from Pres Ahmedinejad).