Reality check on Iran

Via Matthew Yglesias, from a McClatchy article:

The presumptive Republican nominee for president and the leading contender for the Democratic nomination are exaggerating what's known about Iran's nuclear program as they duel over how best to deal with Tehran.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. intelligence community, however, thinks that Iran halted an effort to build a nuclear warhead in mid-2003, and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the program, has found no evidence to date of an active Iranian nuclear-weapons project.

Lost in all the back and forth over what to do about Iran is the simple fact that there is no real evidence of actual wrongdoing by Iran. As far as anyone knows, they are NOT developing nuclear weapons. They are not (insert x number of months) away from a nuclear bomb, and even if they were, the IAEA would know about it. It's not easy to enrich/weaponize large amounts of nuclear material in secret, especially in this, the satellite age.

It would be wise for all of us to keep this in mind the next time we hear politicians talking about the growing threat of Iran.

Of course, there are other issues of contention. No one seriously disputes that Iran is the main backer of Hezbollah, and that they try and promote their interests inside Iraq, sometimes by undermining the legitimate Iraqi government. Iran is not exactly a warm and fuzzy country, and relations between them and the West are cool for good reason. But despite what the neo-cons want us to think, they are not Nazi Germany, and the sooner we start seriously talking to them, the better.

Negotiating with Iran

Obama had to make sure today that everyone knew he has never said a word about negotiating with terrorists (other than to say he wouldn't do it), because over the past couple days, a lot of right-wing hacks seem to have gone around saying that Obama wanted to sit down with Hamas and Hezbollah and whoever else, as part of the whole "appeasement" thing. Leaving aside the fact that none of this is true, it's really up to the Israelis to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, and the US can be nothing more than a facilitator of talks between them.

So the question remains, what about Iran? It is true that Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a bit of a nut. He's mused about a world without Israel (or wiping Israel off the map, depending on how you translate it), he's voiced doubts about the holocaust, and his religious views are, by all accounts, quite radical. But he is a president of a sovereign nation. He isn't a terrorist.

Looking back over the past 7 and a half years, has Bush's policy vis a vis Iran (ie. not talking to them, calling them part of an "Axis of Evil", and threatening them with attack every now and then) been a success? Obviously not. If anything Iran has become much more powerful in the Middle East since Bush took office. The war in Iraq removed one of their oldest and most inplacable enemies, Saddam Hussein, and gave political power in that country to the majority Shiites, who Iran holds a great deal of influence over. Aside from the US, the Iraqi government's most important ally is, ironically, Iran. And they've been bold enough to let their proxies in Hezbollah start a war with Israel and fight to a symbolic victory. And with the price of oil higher than ever, Iran has more resources with which to pursue its ambitions.

Can talking to them really be any worse? According to the Bush administration's own intelligence, there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Bush was embarrassed by that admission, of course, and he prefers not to dwell on that issue when he compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler in front of foreign parliaments. So that's one issue off the table. Since the US and Iran have not maintained diplomatic relations for some 30 years, no one should expect immediate progress on any of the outstanding issues. Iran will continue supporting Hezbollah for the forseeable future. They will continue meddling in Iraq. And Ahmadinejad is not going to change his entire political/religious philosophy. But the simple act of talking, country to country, equal to equal, is an important and necessary precursor to working this stuff out.