Kerry warns McCain and neocon agitators to 'Think Before You Speak' (NYT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry (D-MA) wrote the following op-ed this morning in the New York Times entitled “With Iran, Think Before You Speak.”

The grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America’s attention and captured headlines — unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran’s unrest. No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama’s response as “tepid.” He has also claimed that “if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail.” Mr. McCain’s rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran’s peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.

There’s just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch. We can’t escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America.

And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one. To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington — instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout “Allahu Akbar” from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah — a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American “fifth column.”

Iran’s internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same — preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran’s domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult. What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a “dialogue among civilizations” and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran’s influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program. The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet. Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region’s extremists on the defensive. We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory. We’re seeing signs that it’s having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.

Kerry is right--the Republicans--and it is the Republicans doing it, mostly--should just shut the fuck up. For once in their lives, they should follow the events closely, not try to control them.

being a$$holes as usual.

Who are their buddies? Who gives them money to vote the "Right" way? Money they use to secure their incumbency?

The weapons/weapons delivery people; the folks who supply swords as opposed to plowshares who are the "Industrial" arm of the Military- Industrial -Congressional complex.

That's why they do what they do. It's not simply mendacity. There's something in it for them. Follow the money.

.

greedy old smooth talking faux-patriots, who love to see American blood spilled in noble causes, so long as the blood doesn't share their DNA.

They could just be stupid guys who have an equally stupid and simplistic constituency, and who will take money to vote a certain way without batting an eye. Many of them will change their vote depending upon how hard they're lobbied, and how many donations they get.

These people, many of them, have no moral core.

as described in your post...stupid and greedy people have been watercarriers to them every step of the way. I would also add 'fearful' to that list.

which would be for the best. It would not be good to have the resolution pass or for the resolution to be defeated. Either can be spun in a negative way.

In the Senate, where they can get something up for a vote, I hope that Chairman Kerry can convince Republicans that playing games with this is a bad idea. But, the underlying ideas actually call into question the dysfunctional policies of the last 50 plus years - so this is likely not going to be immediately accepted for the common sense it is.

If you think of it, for Kerry, this must be great, He is backing a President doing what he argued for when he spoke against the support for the Contras and earlier when he spoke before the Senate in 1971 - ending his speech with a call to turn our foreign policy.

something that I think was rare in the past. (She did go with him in late 2007 to South Africa, where he was doing SFRC work looking at the AIDS program.)

This year, she went to:
Gaza with him - a trip that really was a big deal

Syria, where they had a long dinner with the leader and his wife - leading to a diplomatic openning that the Obama administration followed up on.

Pakistan

Sudan - where Kerry was able to get agreement on getting aid restored to earlier levels after aid workers were thrown out and got agreement that the US envoy, the Sudan leaders and Rebels would meet

China - where they spoke to many people on the global climate change and other issues - including NK, because that was when the test occurred.

Had McCain taken power there wouldn't even be the slight prospect of regieme change in Iran. Given time and given elections are every 3 years this looks more possible.

:toast:

.

You're completely right. Welcome to DU. :hi:

I am impressed how all the Obama administration - from the President himself to VP Biden and SoS Clinton have all spoken with the same caution.

Kerry addressed Iran and the beginning of a speech on global warming Monday and even more in the Q&A, which starts about half way through. (If you want to get to just this - the Iran comments are at the beginning of the speech and at the beginning of the Q & A, which is when Kerry and Brokaw are first seen sitting down - and it is about half way into the time bar.) http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/video.html

It is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty, but that all the Democrats are urging caution - and I like that both Obama and Kerry called earlier meddling - what it was "meddling" and both said it had caused problems. THAT is a major difference from the last 50 years. This is a MAJOR change in foreign policy.

This op-ed gives outstanding reasons that support the policy that the Obama administration has taken.

... or something subtly evil like that. :evilfrown:

When W was at 1600, everyone was hushed and basically threatened to only say nice things about the Pretzeldent.
Now, when the shoe's on the other foot, the GOP can't seem to shut up.
And yet, to a reasonable extent, the Dems are allowing them their opinions - up til the point of inciting a riot.

So yes, there is a difference, and that's what I was trying to point out.

He is not speaking of all actions of the President - even all actions on foreign policy. It is NOT because the RW is against Obama that he is saying this - he is clear that it is because things said here will be twisted by the Iranians. This is easy to do because the thing that the RW is urging is the public side of the covert actions we did for the last 50 years. As we did support a coup in Iran in the 1950s, it could be very believable to Iranians that we would do so now.

Ari was saying "Don't be disloyal to "Murkah" or His Highness George Bush in your comments--if you know what is good for you (snicker, threaten)."

Kerry is saying "Before you open your big, fat yaptrap, do take a second and review how your remarks might influence events that are happening in a separate, sovereign country that has a history of contention with the west, and whose oppressive leaders would love to use your possibly jingoistic, xenophobic and dumbass remarks to bolster their failing regime."

McCain and the others... it's like they live in a binary world, us vs. them, good vs. evil, etc. No sense of nuance or subtlety. It's so obvious that the LAST possible thing that Moussavi and his followers need (or want) right now is an open arm embrace from the US establishment, Obama or no Obama. It's silly and infuriating beyond belief.

to back up his OpEd.

If we appear to line up with one side or the other, it won't be helpful.

However, the protesters, the reform group, actually won the election and there's little doubt
about that. http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2455&Itemid=2

The neocons ruined the country. They should be ignored.

Only one problem with the statement: Iran is disliked in the Middle East and South Asia. Candidate
Mousavi asked the curent president to name one positive relationship in the region in their debate.
There was no response.

He would very likely agree with you that they won. He has also made the case in several speeches that Iran is feared and disliked and is the focus for most concern - more than even Israel in the area.

From another comment:

Kerry addressed Iran and the beginning of a speech on global warming Monday and even more in the Q&A, which starts about half way through. (If you want to get to just this - the Iran comments are at the beginning of the speech and at the beginning of the Q & A, which is when Kerry and Brokaw are first seen sitting down - and it is about half way into the time bar.) http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/video.html

:hi:

impossible task

Absolutely EVERYONE knows perfectly well that directly getting involved will make the pro-democracy movement look like stooges for America and the CIA. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, unless they are absolute idiots - which I suppose is entirely possible.

...Policy Oriented DUers took the same position as Kerry on Day One after election in Iran.
We were attacked by the DU Flag Wavers.

I was surprised by the number of DUers who thought the US had a right and an obligation to intervene in this Iranian problem.

side with secrecy and privilege. Not all Dems are equal in their duties to citizenship.

:kick:

Kerry is a wise man.

do not care what they say and who gets hurt by it.

.

:kick:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/31433050#31433050

Here, he repeats the same message that he wrote in the op-ed.

Warning - following Kerry, the Republican is Chambliss. Following anyone, he would sound like an idiot - but following Kerry, he is completely outclassed. (I never have heard anyone use "mutation" to mean "mute" before. )

Mathews is really weird here.

Before the election he was spoiling to bomb Iranians to hell; now he loves them and wants to embrace them!

They need to be kept far away from the red phone.

K&R for JK, one of the smartest guys in the room.

foreign policy issues. It is to bad your friend did not do some honest research on the senator instead of just believing in negative campaign rhetoric. The media did the senator and us all a disservice by portraying him as they did.

Hopefully, he'll have the chance to catch up and recognize that there isn't a lawmaker in DC who has ALREADY HAD a more compelling and positive impact on this nation's historic record of the last FOUR DECADES than John Kerry has.

I'd bet my house that Cyrus never knew that it was Kerry who uncovered IranContra, which also led to the revelations of S&L crimes, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning. And he did so AGAINST the wishes of the powerful and leaders of his own party and the entire powerstructure in DC.

having looked into anything. I have followed elections with great interest and I think 2004 is the first year where not one of the networks created the typical puff piece biography that creates the best narrative possible as to why this person's life makes him/her a potential President. Now, they even did this in 2000 for Bush - which couldn't have been easy.

Kerry's entire biography would have given producers more to use than any nominee's I can think of. (PBS Frontline did a double biography, which was almost comical - as it switched back and forth between the two over their lives. Bush's first 40 years were sketchy - while Kerry was a war hero, an articulate, mature eloquent advocate speaking before the Senate, an excellent prosecutor, and an accomplished lt Governor in his first 40 years.)

But, I am not sure that America, as traumatized and fearful as it was in 2004, would have listened even if it were out there. What it might have done was made more people, disappointed that their primary choice lost, more comfortable in supporting JK.

Do you think that the surprise on the part of your friend of Kerry having this in - is because some of these ideas - and even more those on the Middle east - represent a MAJOR shift from the dysfunctional policies of the last 50 years. Would the same surprise have been there if any major powerful American politician other than Obama, including either Clinton, have said this? Kerry has taken positions like this before in international forums - including one at Davos in 2005 or 2006 - for which the Republicans attacked him.

What is sad is that that many Americans still do not know that this is consistent with things John Kerry has said all the way back to his speech at Yale. I think this was what he meant when he ended his Senate testimony saying that he hoped Vietnam would become the place where America turned. That did not happen, nor did it happen when he fought our policies in Central America when he was first a Senator.

He has, of course, matured, but his comments on the Middle East - at least since 2003 (it could have been earlier - that is the earliest I read) have always been more more thoughtful and balanced than others. It is great that he can now support a President with similar views.

DU is being spammed by Pro-Iran war propaganda.