Thomas Friedman in the NY Times on Iran

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mannahnin**

Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times wrote:“Not so strange Bedfellow”

Here’s a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — “Country A” and “Country B” — and you tell me which one is America’s ally and which one is not.

Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A’s women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force. On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A’s radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it’s a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda’s nihilism.

Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.

Country B’s private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B’s mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B’s leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

Question: Which country is America’s natural ally: A or B?

Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.

Don’t worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the U.S. and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that.

Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran’s two biggest enemies — the Taliban and Saddam — “there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans,” Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran’s former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. “There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States.”

More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.

That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran’s active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.

This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.

How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.

Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.

**Asmodai**

50,000 student visas?

In a country where so many students, predominantly poor and minorities can't make it?

I recommend taking a look at this article: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/guidance/index.html?ref=opinion

I'd much rather see 50,000 'student visas' (college placements with funding) to help kids from Chicago, New York, L.A., etc. get into college than provide Iran with as many nuclear scientists as they could ever want.

**Frazzled**

Asmodai wrote:50,000 student visas?

In a country where so many students, predominantly poor and minorities can't make it?

I recommend taking a look at this article: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/guidance/index.html?ref=opinion

I'd much rather see 50,000 'student visas' (college placements with funding) to help kids from Chicago, New York, L.A., etc. get into college than provide Iran with as many nuclear scientists as they could ever want.

Massive dittos.

Let them have visas when every poor kid coming out Shreveport, New Orleans, some Appalachian trailer park, and barrios in Southern California are able to go to college.

**Da Boss**

I was reading a debate about this on another forum.
(The Iranian student issue.)
I have no particular interest in the grant of the visas or not, or giving money at home instead of abroad.
But I do think it's silly to talk about the US being the only place Iranians could train nuclear scientists. That's really niaive. They could get that information if they wanted it, and almost definitely already have. What they need for a credible bomb threat is the massive manufacturing and purification infastructure for purifying uranium into the correct isotope. Those students, with all their knowledge, would be useless without an infastructure to work in.

If it's just a case of a "dirty bomb", well, they're not that hard to make anyway, and a degree in nuclear physics is hardly nessicary.

**Mannahnin**

Agreed.

Decrying a potential danger from Iranian students coming here and studying nuclear physics is ignorant fearmongering.

IF we were actually worried about that, how hard would it be to…
1. Put a restriction on the visas that they couldn’t study subjects we’re scared of them learning
2. Talk to the nuclear physics departments at each US university with a serious program, and tell them about the restriction.

Not exactly rocket science.

jfrazell wrote: Let them have visas when every poor kid coming out Shreveport, New Orleans, some Appalachian trailer park, and barrios in Southern California are able to go to college.

Student visas are just legal permission to come here and study. Not payment for it.

The issue of sending more underprivileged kids to school is completely different and unrelated. I’d love to do that more. Jfrazell, are you joining the “nanny state” side?

**Frazzled**

I disagree Manny. Correct me if I am wrong, but to have a student visa you have to actually be accepted at a university correct? Thats a spot that could have gone to someone here. If not for US citizens I'd rather the sons and duaghters of hard working immigrants have that option.

As to Nanny state. Education is the key to freedom from poverty. Nothing else helps free people from economic bondage so much as a good education. So I guess just call me NannyFraz

**Mannahnin**

jfrazell wrote:I disagree Manny. Correct me if I am wrong, but to have a student visa you have to actually be accepted at a university correct? Thats a spot that could have gone to someone here. If not for US citizens I'd rather the sons and duaghters of hard working immigrants have that option.

Here’s the thing; only the best schools are so full that they have to pick and choose who they accept. To the best of my knowledge having enough space in colleges and universities to take all the students who want to and can afford to go isn’t the problem. There’s plenty of space for people to get into decent schools. The main thing keeping people out of school is simply not being able to afford it.

Any smart, talented American applicants who get turned away from those top schools will have no problem getting into a “lesser” school.

jfrazell wrote:As to Nanny state. Education is the key to freedom from poverty. Nothing else helps free people from economic bondage so much as a good education. So I guess just call me NannyFraz

I could hug you.

Now that’s gotta shock people.

**dienekes96**

I am very much NOT a nanny government guy. I have worked and continue to work for the government, and a more inefficient bureaucratic process you won't find.

But the government MUST provide quality education through at least high school, if not undergrad work. I agree that is the only way to fully embrace equality for all. In that, I support major government efforts in conjunction with local/state governments.

1) I don't think the nuclear scientist fear is just ignorant fear-mongering. China has done exactly that, and then some. That said, it's hardly a real barrier. It just requires some guidelines and oversight.

2) I don't agree with this:

Mannahnin wrote:Here’s the thing; only the best schools are so full that they have to pick and choose who they accept.

I recently read a study at msnbc which discussed that the majority of baby boomer kids are hitting college, and that even the middle schools are getting highly competitive. in short, demand is rising much faster than supply. So I do think foreign students are a part of the equation.

3) So, if we are going to do your NannyGovEducation, it'll be with my tax dollars, and I want it to benefit American kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Iranian kids should get the same opportunities Egyptian or Chinese kids get. No more, no less.

**Frazzled**

dienekes96 wrote:I am very much NOT a nanny government guy. I have worked and continue to work for the government, and a more inefficient bureaucratic process you won't find.

But the government MUST provide quality education through at least high school, if not undergrad work. I agree that is the only way to fully embrace equality for all. In that, I support major government efforts in conjunction with local/state governments.

1) I don't think the nuclear scientist fear is just ignorant fear-mongering. China has done exactly that, and then some. That said, it's hardly a real barrier. It just requires some guidelines and oversight.

2) I don't agree with this:

Mannahnin wrote:Here’s the thing; only the best schools are so full that they have to pick and choose who they accept.
I recently read a study at msnbc which discussed that the majority of baby boomer kids are hitting college, and that even the middle schools are getting highly competitive. in short, demand is rising much faster than supply. So I do think foreign students are a part of the equation.

3) So, if we are going to do your NannyGovEducation, it'll be with my tax dollars, and I want it to benefit American kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Iranian kids should get the same opportunities Egyptian or Chinese kids get. No more, no less.

Agreed.

**efarrer**

dienekes96 wrote:I am very much NOT a nanny government guy. I have worked and continue to work for the government, and a more inefficient bureaucratic process you won't find.

But the government MUST provide quality education through at least high school, if not undergrad work. I agree that is the only way to fully embrace equality for all. In that, I support major government efforts in conjunction with local/state governments.

1) I don't think the nuclear scientist fear is just ignorant fear-mongering. China has done exactly that, and then some. That said, it's hardly a real barrier. It just requires some guidelines and oversight.

2) I don't agree with this:

Mannahnin wrote:Here’s the thing; only the best schools are so full that they have to pick and choose who they accept.
I recently read a study at msnbc which discussed that the majority of baby boomer kids are hitting college, and that even the middle schools are getting highly competitive. in short, demand is rising much faster than supply. So I do think foreign students are a part of the equation.

3) So, if we are going to do your NannyGovEducation, it'll be with my tax dollars, and I want it to benefit American kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Iranian kids should get the same opportunities Egyptian or Chinese kids get. No more, no less.

Do you want to spend 10 billion to defeat the Iranians or 2-3 trillion?

It's a simple question. Think on it.

Here a hint though. The Iranian youth want peace and freedom. They really do. It can happen if they are given encouragement. Don't expect to be able to attack it with the sort of success that Iraq had. This is a population can be beaten by peace easier then violence.

**Asmodai**

I agree that a peaceful approach to Iran would be better for both sides.

You only need one side to have a fight. If Iran keeps on trying to start a war by threatening our ships in international waters, kidnapping British sailors, etc., there's very little we can do except give it to them. Not to mention they keep calling for the complete extermination of all Jews.

Hopefully with a new US administration in less than a year Iran will be willing to take a less bellicose posture, stop funding terrorist groups like Hamas, and accept the legitimacy of Israel. If that happens than I think both the US and Iran would benefit from normalizing relations.

Both sides need to choose peace though. As we learned with Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, unilaterally choosing peace doesn't actually make it happen.

I'm still skeptical on the visas. That's a huge number. Here in Canada, universities usually turn away Canadian students in favour of foreign students if they can because foreign students pay higher tuition fees. I suspect things are the same in the US. This does mean that there's less space for American students - especially those with poorer grades (often from inner city schools or with no university-educated parents to help them). The effect is even more profound at the graduate level where fees are higher and spaces rarer.

We shouldn't turn them away automatically, but 50,000 guaranteed spaces is crazy. Not to mention that it would probably mean less spaces for students from countries like Japan, Korea, and Britain which have been reliable allies for 50 years.

**dienekes96**

I don't need to send Iranian kids to college or fight a war. I'd like to think there are more than those two options.

You want to hear my proposal for peace in the Middle East.

1) Like JFK and the space race, the next President should challenge America to be gas-independent in one decade. Add a specific 1-2% tax to every citizen above the poverty line (and feel free to make it a realistic line, not the nonsense we currently have). Fund the research.

2) Achieve it, providing critical improvements in our science/technology efforts, a viable commercial export, and...

3) No more required financial interest in the Middle East. None. Let them be China's problem. And then China will be their problem.

4) Tell Israel (a country and people I dearly love, having visited [even though I'm a gentile]) to trade some land for peace. Don't ask, tell.

Then we don't have to CARE what Iran does. Or Saudi Arabia. We aren't on a course to war with Iran. They have everything to lose if that happens, and they know it. But they do have leverage (oil) to push our buttons and gain regional prestige, so they do it. It'll NEVER lead to war.

**Frazzled**

Friedman forgot this part:

Which country is sending munitions and training personnel to kill US soldiers in Iraq

answer: Iran.

The assumption that Iran has a vested interest in a stable Iraq is misplaced. Iran has a vested interest in gaining control of the Shiite areas or annexing them.

Edit: Dieneke for Prez!

**efarrer**

jfrazell wrote:Friedman forgot this part:

Which country is sending munitions and training personnel to kill US soldiers in Iraq

answer: Iran.

The assumption that Iran has a vested interest in a stable Iraq is misplaced. Iran has a vested interest in gaining control of the Shiite areas or annexing them.

Edit: Dieneke for Prez!

That answer may not be as clear cut as you are trying to make it sound.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/questions_about_iranian_weapon.php

As well that misses the final distinct possibilty, as far as people outside of the United States are concerned. That the weapons displayed should have thier origin regarded with a high level of suspicion in light of the systematic pattern of aggressive deception that the administration has engaged in on previous occassions to justify war. For a period of about 6-8 months last year the Bush Administration was trying to play chicken with Iran. In the end domsetic issues seem to be overtaking that agenda.

**efarrer**

Asmodai wrote:I agree that a peaceful approach to Iran would be better for both sides.

You only need one side to have a fight. If Iran keeps on trying to start a war by threatening our ships in international waters, kidnapping British sailors, etc., there's very little we can do except give it to them. Not to mention they keep calling for the complete extermination of all Jews..

To be fair, the water's are highly disputed in that part of the world, and the Brits were aggressivly pushing the disputed area. No arguement on the Isreal thing, but remember to seperate the government and older generatio from the youngsters (who make a huge percentage of the population thanks to the 1980s).

Asmodai wrote:
Hopefully with a new US administration in less than a year Iran will be willing to take a less bellicose posture, stop funding terrorist groups like Hamas, and accept the legitimacy of Israel. If that happens than I think both the US and Iran would benefit from normalizing relations.
.

That may be the most reasonable hope.

Asmodai wrote:
Both sides need to choose peace though. As we learned with Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, unilaterally choosing peace doesn't actually make it happen.
.

Goodwinned

Asmodai wrote:
I'm still skeptical on the visas. That's a huge number. Here in Canada, universities usually turn away Canadian students in favour of foreign students if they can because foreign students pay higher tuition fees. I suspect things are the same in the US. This does mean that there's less space for American students - especially those with poorer grades (often from inner city schools or with no university-educated parents to help them). The effect is even more profound at the graduate level where fees are higher and spaces rarer..

If you want to win the cultural war, this is the cheapest attack on the culture possible though, and the most effective in the long run.

Asmodai wrote:
We shouldn't turn them away automatically, but 50,000 guaranteed spaces is crazy. Not to mention that it would probably mean less spaces for students from countries like Japan, Korea, and Britain which have been reliable allies for 50 years.

Pretty sure he was spitballing the numbers.

**Mannahnin**

dienekes96 wrote:2) I don't agree with this:

Mannahnin wrote:Here’s the thing; only the best schools are so full that they have to pick and choose who they accept.

I recently read a study at msnbc which discussed that the majority of baby boomer kids are hitting college, and that even the middle schools are getting highly competitive. in short, demand is rising much faster than supply. So I do think foreign students are a part of the equation.

Good to know. Thank you for that. It surprises me though. My parents are boomers, and I’m in my 30s. I would think we’ve already passed the surge from boomers’ kids.

dienekes96 wrote:3) So, if we are going to do your NannyGovEducation, it'll be with my tax dollars, and I want it to benefit American kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Iranian kids should get the same opportunities Egyptian or Chinese kids get. No more, no less.

I agree that US kids should get preference, but I can see political value in giving Iranians higher priority than Egyptians or most other foreign applicants.

Asmodai wrote:You only need one side to have a fight. If Iran keeps on trying to start a war by threatening our ships in international waters, kidnapping British sailors, etc., there's very little we can do except give it to them.

Not to mention they keep calling for the complete extermination of all Jews.

Hopefully with a new US administration in less than a year Iran will be willing to take a less bellicose posture, stop funding terrorist groups like Hamas, and accept the legitimacy of Israel. If that happens than I think both the US and Iran would benefit from normalizing relations.

Both sides need to choose peace though. As we learned with Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, unilaterally choosing peace doesn't actually make it happen.

I think you’re a) being way over the top in comparing Iran to Nazi Germany, and b) tarring a lot of nice Iranians with the same brush as their president. A president who, as Friedman points out, had most of his candidates LOSE recent elections. Very likely because the actual Iranian people DON’T fanatically support him, and probably have a decent idea that he’s a nutjob.

**dienekes96**

Mannahnin wrote:Good to know. Thank you for that. It surprises me though. My parents are boomers, and I’m in my 30s. I would think we’ve already passed the surge from boomers’ kids.

My parents are also boomers...1946. but the boomer line extends 20 years, and the majority of the kids from it are apparently at this end. I was surprised by that as well. It might have been bad fact-checking by msnbc as well. But the point was that schools are getting more competitive, not less.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree that US kids should get preference, but I can see political value in giving Iranians higher priority than Egyptians or most other foreign applicants.

But I don't want to. Bias is bias, and it would feel like admitting they deserve special treatment. They deserve equal treatment, because I accept your view that the Iranian people could be a great ally and are a decent people. Their government, not so much. But let's treat them with respect and see what happens. I'm fine with that. But *if* we catch their government/military supplying terrorists with weapons (including terrorists in Iraq targeting Iraqis or our soldiers), that needs to be severely addressed.

**Asmodai**

Mannahnin wrote:

I think you’re a) being way over the top in comparing Iran to Nazi Germany, and b) tarring a lot of nice Iranians with the same brush as their president. A president who, as Friedman points out, had most of his candidates LOSE recent elections. Very likely because the actual Iranian people DON’T fanatically support him, and probably have a decent idea that he’s a nutjob.

Since Iran wants to wipe out the Jews as government policy, I think the comparison is apt.

If the nice Iranians stopped supporting their president, I'd agree with you. If they vote him out of office then it would be a different story. You're also forgetting that the President isn't the ruler of Iran. He's the 'CEO', but the Chairman of the Board is Ayatollah Khamenei who's views are also pretty extreme.

I think that we should make it clear that we are willing to deal with Iranian moderates, but in doing so we shouldn't try appeasement and shouldn't back down on asking them to stop supporting terrorist groups like Hamas, issuing fatwas against writers like Rushdie, and to stop sending weapons and support to militias in Iraq.

**Stormtrooper X**

I think Saudi Arabia is a bigger threat to us than Iran. 95% of the countries wealth is controlled by less than 1% of the population. That means you have millions of people living in poverty. An excellent breeding ground for Islamic extremists. So how do you help change this? Start drilling for oil here in the US. We have plenty of the stuff and Saudi Arabia is already starting to decline in oil production. What we have access to here in the States without using any middle man is enough to last us long enough for us to find an alternative fuel. Of course this brings into play all the environmentalists who don't want to drill in Alaska because of the destruction it could cause. A middle ground needs to be found here. The nation needs the oil in Alaska to withdraw from the Middle-East, but we'll need to do it in a safe environment friendly way.

**Asmodai**

The main issue with that, Stormtrooper, is that although we have lots of oil, the costs for extracting it aren't economical. Using only domestic oil would cause energy costs to skyrocket and lead to economic problems. It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it can actually be put into practice.