The impossibly high bar jump

I don't know what's funnier: the hypocrisy of Barack Obama's epistle to the Iranians instructing them that their "rightful place in the community of nations...cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions," even as a U.S. nuclear submarine and amphibious assault ship are running into each other a few miles off of Iran's coast, or this assessment of Iran's reply by Brian Murphy of the Associated Press:

But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response was more than just a dismissive slap at the outreach. It was a broad lesson in the mind-set of Iran's all-powerful theocracy and how it will dictate the pace and tone of any new steps by Obama to chip away at their nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze. [...]

Khamenei set the bar impossibly high — demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms.

So in Murphy's view, Iran is setting an impossibly high bar by 1) asking U.S. officials to stop going light years beyond their own intelligence services' estimate regarding Iran's nuclear program and 2) asking not that the U.S. stop supporting Israel, but stop doing so unconditionally.  Or in other words, it's completely unreasonable for Iran to ask the U.S. either to stop lying or to treat Israel like any other nation.

And a look at the fuller context of Khamenei's impossibly high bar also shows that Murphy can't distinguish between a demand and a rhetorical question:

Has your hostility towards the Iranian nation changed? Where are its signs? Have you unblocked the assets of the Iranian nation? Have you lifted the oppressive sanctions? Have you given up your mudslinging and making accusations against this great nation and its popular officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for Israel? What has changed? They give the slogan of change but we have seen nothing in practice. We have seen no change.

Yes, what outrageous "demands" these are.  Why oh why are our enemies so unreasonable?  And why do they insist on locating their countries on top of our oil?

THE DEPTHS OF OUR RESPECT: Glenn Greenwald goes from lamenting that "it's becoming increasingly difficult for honest commentators to do anything else but conclude that the only improvements that will be made by Obama will be cosmetic ones" (in reference to civil liberties assaults and executive power abuses) to lavishing praise on the cosmetic improvement that Obama's message to Iran represents.  He even went so far as to claim that Obama "never once mentions Iran's nuclear program."  What did he think Obama meant by "terror or arms"—handguns?  Slingshots?  Limbs attached at the shoulder?  And Obama made another clear reference to that alleged nuclear program when he said that Iran's "capacity to destroy" wasn't a measure of its greatness.

Yes, Obama's overture to Iran represents a tactical change from the past 30 years, but to characterize it as "deeply respectful" (as Greenwald does) is absurd.  Obama's message was crystal clear in its paternalistic condescension: if only Iran will set aside its terrorism, its mad pursuit of nuclear weapons, its irresponsibility and its rejection of peaceful actions, we might finally deign to let it "take its rightful place in the community of nations."  Or in other words, we'll let Iran come back to the dinner table if it will just apologize for hitting its sister.  This was nothing more than an extended remix of Obama's Inaugural Day dig that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

And then there's the more indirect but no less serious insult of Obama ludicrously boiling down the conflict between the U.S. and Iran to "serious differences that have grown over time."  Apparently our violent overthrow of their elected government in 1953, our subsequent quarter century's worth of support for a brutal dictator, and our backing of Iraq as it killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians are entirely balanced out by their takeover of the U.S. Espionage Den in 1979.  I can't help but recall Jimmy Carter's statement that there was no need for the United States to "apologize or castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability" with respect to Vietnam because "the destruction was mutual."

When I read Obama's message I thought that the least he could have done if he was genuinely committed to change in this case was to apologize for (or even just acknowledge) the U.S.-backed overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, which is both public knowledge and entirely indefensible.  But even such a small symbolic gesture was too much.  So Khamenei was absolutely right to say that Obama's message was "the slogan of change" rather than the genuine article—and anyone who's able to set aside their U.S.-centric world view for a moment should be able to see that.

Comments

[LA Confidential Pantload]

Interesting that the press in the rest of the world seemed to grasp this much better than the U.S. Gee, you think our media are in the tank, or what?

[KDelphi]

It was arrogant and paternalistic beyond my wildest dreams. I dont believe that Obama is going to be helpful in any way, in teh Middle East, including Gaza. Mitchell had a chance, but, under Cliton?? NOT a chance!

[SteveB]

Obama's playing the role of abusive husband: "Honey, I know we've had some problems in the past, but..."

Still, if you're the abused wife, hearing the bullshit "I'm sorry and I won't do it again" speech is probably better than seeing him come at you with his belt in one hand. At least it gives you some time to sneak out the back door and call the cops from the neighbor's house (metaphorically speaking.)

Anyway, my metaphor falls apart because Iran is not helpless and not at all afraid of the U.S. Suppose the U.S. or Israel did bomb the nuclear facility at Natanz? The Iranians would just build it up again, be the recipients of the world's sympathy, and see their prestige and influence in the middle east increase enormously. And the US and Israel would just be further marginalized in world public opinion. With its "no nukes under any circumstances" position, the US has argued itself into a box, and Obama knows it.

[Duncan]

"... and Obama knows it."

I wish I could believe that.

[SteveB]

I don't see why he shouldn't know it, the standard formulation you hear from our power elite today is, "It's totally unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon - or even a nuclear-energy program - but none of the 'tools' we would use to prevent them from developing a program is working, or is even capable of working."
You don't have to be a genius to see that the military option isn't going to work. Even George W. Bush could see that.

[John Caruso]

Mitchell had a chance, but, under Cliton?

I'm not, uh, touching that typo with a 10-foot pole. Assuming it was a typo....