We need to freeze this Ruth Marcus column in amber so that it never perishes. Future generations will not believe that it actually existed if they can’t see it with their own eyes. It is probably the purest form of wankery that has ever been constructed. I thought I had seen Peak Beltway Trolling, but I had not seen anything.
How can I find the right analogy for her argument?
Imagine if you will that there is a giant anvil hanging by a rope over your head and that the rope is on fire and the anvil will soon fall on you and kill you.
Now, imagine that someone comes up with a plan to put out the fire before it burns through the rope and you die.
Now imagine that some people are concerned that the rope might catch fire again at some future date and are therefore against putting out the fire right now and saving your life.
I could expand on this analogy to make it more realistic, but I think it’s best to keep this really simple.
What Ruth Marcus is saying is that of course we should put out this fire, but we shouldn’t be impatient with the people who say that we should not.
That’s really it.
When you boil it down to its essentials, those who think Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon should want to put out the fire. If the fire flares back up, we’ll deal with that then, but the immediate problem is the anvil.
If you want to get a little more detailed about it, we’re able to put the fire out right now but if we dawdle, the firemen will go home and they won’t come back in time or, really, ever. In fact, the whole plan for putting out the fire was concocted by the firemen because they believe the plan will work.
For Ruth Marcus, none of this is in dispute or even actually disputable. Yet, despite this, she is appalled that the president is dismissive of the people who want to tell the firemen to go home.
I could go through her column paragraph by paragraph, but that would give me either an aneurysm or a bad case of apoplexy.
I’ll let this suffice. Ms. Marcus says “you don’t have to be an ideologue, or an idiot, to have serious qualms” about putting out the rope fire to prevent the anvil from falling on your head.
But, as she very well knows and describes quite well, you do have to be an idiot to have qualms about something like that.
The only possible excuse from not wanting to put out the fire is if you don’t think there is even an anvil there in the first place.
Is that Chuck Schumer or Joe Lieberman’s position? Is that the position of anyone who is publicly opposing this deal right now?
No?
If the anvil is real and the rope is on fire and the fire department has a plan to put it out, you let them put it out and then you talk to us about your qualms.
But, this is what Marcus says about the president:
Obama once understood, even celebrated, this gray zone of difficult policy choices. He was a man who took pains to recognize and validate the legitimate concerns of those on the opposite side of nearly any complex debate.
The new Obama, hardened and embittered — the one on display in his American University speech last week and in the follow-up spate of interviews — has close to zero tolerance for those who reach contrary conclusions.
He’s “hardened and embittered” and has “close to no tolerance” for people who claim to care about the anvil, who say that the anvil will kill us, who acknowledge that the rope is on fire, and who nonetheless want him to tell the fire department to go home because even if they put the fire out, the fire might come back and kill us ten or fifteen years from now.
And if you point out that the fire department isn’t coming back tomorrow or in ten or fifteen years, well, then you “brook no disagreement, accommodate no uncertainty.”
Let’s listen to the folks Obama is supposed to accommodate:
“The alternative is not war,” Schumer said. “I’d be very much opposed to war. It is to go back to the bargaining table and come to a better agreement,” Schumer said in a Manhattan event Tuesday…
…“U.S. sanctions, which will stay in place absolutely if we don’t have an agreement, along with pressure on other countries to keep Iran isolated, can force Iran back to the table,” Schumer claimed.
“It’s a bad deal,” said Mr. Lieberman, who believes that lawmakers have a chance to block the accord even if that means overcoming a presidential veto. “If the Iranians are pressured more, I think we can get a better agreement.”
There is no better agreement. And I think John Kerry explained it very well here why we can’t keep the sanctions on Iran if we walk away from the deal:
Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking at a Reuters event in New York, hit back at Schumer’s argument on his own turf — in particular the idea that it was possible to get a better deal.
“Are you kidding me?” Kerry asked. “The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal? And we’re going to force them to do what we want them to do, even though they agreed to the deal we came to?” he continued.
Because sanctions don’t work on Iran unless we’re willing to sanction those who violate the sanctions on Iran. And we’re not going to do that because that would be completely insane in this context.
But, as I’ve said, Ruth Marcus knows this very well. And, yet, she chose to use her precious space in the Washington Post to troll the president for being dismissive and exasperated and unaccommodating of the people who are just talking the worst nonsense about this deal.
Her conclusion is so priceless that it needs to be saved for the ages:
The less [the president] insults his critics — yes, even the ones who insult him as a feckless, naive negotiator — the better.
As John Kerry said, “Are you kidding me?”
nailed it
The only thing I disagree with is your reference to “her precious space in the Washington Post.”
I mean, does anybody take this neocon rag seriously any more?
Well, yes, but that’s assuming you accept the premise on which this whole dispute purports to be based, which is completely false. Here is the actual truth of the matter.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Zionist Organization of America, and Mike Huckabee do not give the tiniest shit if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Israel possesses 100 to 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. That’s supposed to be a secret that nobody ever mentions. If Iran were to exercise it’s purportedly “existential threat” by somehow smuggling its one low yield, untested nuclear weapon into Tel Aviv, the nation of Iran would cease to exist along with every city, shrine, ayatollah, military facility, industrial plant, bridge, highway, railroad, cultural institution and most of the population. Persian culture would essentially become extinct. Everybody knows that.
No, Bibi just doesn’t want Iran to have the opportunity to rejoin the international community. He wants no agreement with Iran of any kind, and he wants the sanctions to remain forever. We can argue about why he wants that and why that is or is not a great idea, but that’s what this is really all about. If Bibi gets his way, Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. That doesn’t bother him.
Well yes, but as Booman points out, it’s not as though the agreement’s critics think that the rope isn’t on fire. If anything, they believe — or pretend to believe — even more in the fire,
Right, but they are only pretending. Otherwise of course they’re position is nonsensical.
If so, that would make Marcus even more of a shill or an idiot (or both).
You should include the full context of Lieberman’s quote which gives the game away:
“How can you make a deal with somebody who says they want to kill you?”
So you can’t make a deal with this person/state/entity, but go back and get a “better” deal.
yes. your analogy nails it. and just to ramble on a little -as this idea that we can reimpose [or continue] sanctions is so, well, can’t think of an adjective – lacking in reality is too neutral a term. I guess it’s kind of like the replacement for Obamacare in international relations sphere
Yes, leave it to a deeply unserious DC insider to observe the Iran circus and conclude that the REAL problem is incivility by a Dem prez. Mah heavens!! Incivility! The chatterers will chatter.
It should be quite clear that the “alternative” to the proposed Iran deal is no deal. No one even marginally schooled in diplomacy would think that Iran would meekly return to the table (as the intellectually dishonest Schumer blathers) if his senate overrides Obama’s veto. There ain’t gonna be another round of negotiations (after literally years of ’em). It’s this deal or nothing, obviously.
Now, do those nations who participated in negotiating this deal follow Schumer’s lead and maintain the sanctions regime after Schumer’s neocons blow up this deal? Schumer either thinks so, indicating he is a fool, or he doesn’t, meaning he is willing to undermine American diplomatic credibility to an enormous extent in order to pacify Israel and rightwing American Jews. Because it’s (mostly) Netanyahoo’s Israel that doesn’t want this deal. But that is not the decisive point for other governments around the world.
As others have said, the Liebermans, Schumers and all their neocon fellow travelers don’t want a “better” deal–they certainly know that’s quite impossible as Kerry makes clear. They want no deal, and they want a continuation of the decades old status quo—Iran as a pariah nation, that (conveniently) cannot be anything else as long as the Ayatollahs rule.
That Schumer will be the Dem leader after this gambit is just another sign of the abject failure of all American institutions.
The tone police keep trying to pull Obama over for Presidenting While Black.
It’s not about being black. It’s about Marcus trying to convince the world that she’s above politics. But all it really speaks to is her stupidity.
The reality is that many of the folks opposing the deal are not idiots, they just play one on TV.
They know everything you say and realize the appropriateness of the analogy. They just really don’t care.
They are either posturing for the public (Schumer) or for Bibi (Schumer again) or they really don’t care if we go to war with Iran.
Or they are smart enough to realize that this agreement opens the door for Iran to become a somewhat respectable member of the international community again and they don’t want that.
Oh, it’s not that bad. Marcus actually lays out the case that the deal MUST be approved. But she writes for a war-mongering, anti-Obama paper, so she believes she has to use the cover that Obama is being a big meanie.
I think she’s just trying to keep up with her girlfriend, Maureen Dowd.
Are they friends? Gross.
At least Marcus doesn’t call Obama a faggot.
Her pattern of thought is nearly as bizarre as you say. You only forget to point out her deep, hypocritical dishonesty in faulting Obama for his leadership—that’s it, isn’t it, leadership. Topped by Kerry’s ‘Are you kidding` to the nay sayers. I’m sure that somewhere in the reams of civil discourse she has turned out she faults Obama and Kerry for not having a spine—leadership.
Kerry is right, there is no better deal. But lets not fool ourselves that this is nuclear containment.
Iran will be nuclear. They have been living with a nuclear Israel. They can do this because Israel has no territorial designs on Iran. They also have been living with a nuclear Pakistan and that they cannot tolerate as Muslim religious wars spiral out of control. The United States has gone out on a limb to stop Iran getting the bomb and instituted harsh sanctions on Iran.
This treaty allows Obama to climb back down the limb. It relieves Iran of the sanctions and allows the USA and Obama to save face. The tip off is the ten year sort of commitment and the inspector free zones. But Kerry is right, Iran will not agree to a non fig leaf treaty. There is only one real alternative: war. And I, for one, am sick of middle east wars.
Pakistan should never have been allowed nuclear capabilities, but past administrations were so anxious that the Leftist government of India was pro-Soviet that they cultured Pakistan as a counter weight, never thinking in their childish “good guy – bad guy” mentality that they were laying the seeds for 9-11.
The treaty is a fig leaf. We can either accept the fig leaf or try to conquer Iran and set up a puppet government backed by US arms. Those are the choices. Continued sanctions will not work. The stakes are too high for Iran and religious leaders have no problem accepting suffering by the laity, indeed it strengthens their power.
This is precisely what nuclear containment looks like.
You get the whole world, especially the military powers to agree that a country should not pursue a nuclear weapon and put sanctions on them to force them to abandon their program.
Then you lift the sanctions when they comply and inspect to make sure that you become aware of it fairly quickly if they renege on the agreement.
You make it so everyone has buy-in, so you can get them come back together for punishment if that becomes necessary.
There are no other ways of doing this, and certainly no better ways.
It’s an enormous accomplishment and the model for all future proliferators.
As for Iran, they might want a nuclear weapon as a deterrent and to give them a freer hand to act in their sphere of influence, but they want an economy more. That’s what we bet on, and we were right.
And, if they don’t have one, we don’t have to worry about the small chance that a crazy person will launch one of these things in some kind of massive suicide bombing mission.
Yes, it is rather important that Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China are parties to the agreement as well. This is something the deal’s opponents completely ignore, and I think even a lot of supporters tend to overlook it. This is not just a deal between Iran and the United States, it’s a deal between Iran and all the world’s major powers. How in God’s name does Bibi Netanyahu outweigh Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China?
But they didn’t abandon nuclear weapons. They retain secret installations that cannot be inspected and only promise not to deploy for ten years, a promise easily broken.
Have you ever known people from Iran or Russia? And I’m not talking about people that escaped and have vowed to seek revenge or those that you haven’t actually spent some period of quality time with?
Can’t say that I’ve met/known people from everywhere in the world, but with a couple of exceptions, have enjoyed their company although less so with Swedes and Austrians.
that’s actually an incorrect statement
Yes, yes, Obama’s alleged leaving of the high road is the crux here.
With the sanctions lifted and all the advantages the country has, they’ll be the regional hegemon in less than ten years. Of course Nuttyyahoo and his band of idiots don’t want that.
they’ll be the regional hegemon in less than ten years
No, they won’t. The religious divide is too long-standing and entrenched and Sunni populations are dominate in most of the region. Iraq is the major exceptions, but that country is unlikely to split into three or stop fighting amongst themselves any time soon.
None of that means that the EU, Russia, China, and everyone else won’t trade with them. Iran’s population is still young and they are still sitting on all that oil. And the younger population is pretty moderate. The rest of the region being everything you described just makes Iran look that much better.
That’s true, but not much different from other countries that have managed to build their economies through trade alliances. wrt education, infrastructure, stable government (regardless of its popular domestically or internationally) it’s long been ahead of many other countries.
Better Iran than the Saudis.
Is there an actual explanation for people like Schumer and Lieberman opposing this? I’m sorry but being Jews first (and dumb ones at that) is the only thing I can come up with.
Schumer is calling senators saying he won’t whip against votes and Obama has said he’ll suffer not one bit on his way to majority leader. Well he’s the president but he’s a lame duck and could just be lying until after the vote.
Schumer gets a lot of money from people who see the world the way Netanyahu does; people who want most of all to keep Iran isolated. I don’t know what motivates Joe Lieberman and never have. Perhaps he’s a reflexive supporter of conservative Israeli positions because he has no brain with which to analyze thing for himself. The man has never seemed at all principled. Or perhaps, whatever his principles are, we on the left just can’t see the world through his prism.
It’s interesting what happens when you bring ISIS into the discussion. I was trying to determine if all these people who are so adamantly opposed to the deal know what part Iran is taking in the fight against ISIS, so I did a little googling. And it turns out that, yes, the deal is bad because Iran is fighting ISIS. Hmm.
Conservative do over. Only do over modern day conservative have never advocated for was the recount in Florida.
Marcus is an idiot.
Ron Fournier is, naturally, on this train too. There’s a memo out to all the fake centrists in the Village media that, no matter what Obama does, no matter how successful he is in achieving a goal, the conventional wisdom must be that he failed to lead, failed to persuade, didn’t live up to his own inclusive promise.
The amount of mendacity, obfuscation, and/or willful ignorance it takes for them to keep this narrative stumbling along in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the GOP’s misinformation and obstruction and the bad faith of so many who oppose him here and abroad, is mindboggling. But they have their marching orders, and Ron Fournier is their spirit guide.
Obama is an almost supernaturally unflappable person. But he’s been dealing with this crap for 7 years now and this issue is way too important to let lying warmongering dipshits like Bloody Bill WRONG Kristol get away with their usual bullshit. Frankly it’s amazing Obama has been as patient with their idiocy as he has.
And of course, I recall Bush being hailed as a strong leader, rallying the country to his side whenever he sought a bipartisan vote, and hailed a strong leader, resolutely ignoring his critics to do what he thinks is right, whenever he bulldozed over Democratic dissenters. Obama is structurally unable to get bipartisan support for anything (and, it’s on the record, he has been so limited since the very day he took office amidst an economic crisis), but is blamed for being weak anyway whenever the GOP follows their public plan of obstruction, and he’s an arrogant tyrant when he moves forward without them. Huh. It’s a real mystery why these two presidents are covered so differently. Yep, a real brainbuster.