Sorry, but why are we still listening to Bob Kagan? (UPDATED)

I’ve had my share of complaints about Kagan in the past, but this one might take the cake. The President, we’re told, needs Ahmadinejad to win.

His extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American “moralizing.” (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn’t want the United States to appear to be “meddling.”)

But Obama’s calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis.

Is this the best we can do on Iran?

This week’s New Yorker contains a rather long essay about the upcoming Iranian presidential elections, entitled “Letter from Tehran: Can Iran Change?”  The piece is a combination bio on Ahmadinejad and encomium to the reformist movement, which is to say that it seems to me to be a rehashing of things that have been written about many, many times before.

Tactical mistakes by a “strategic thinker”

Admiral William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, resigned yesterday in the wake of reports that he and the President were not on the same page about U.S. policy towards Iran. His unlikely assassin: Tom Barnett, a man who professes admiration for Fallon and has identified him as one of the greatest strategic thinkers in today’s American military. Barnett’s anti-White House hit piece in Esquire illustrates the limitations of a self-styled strategist trying to moonlight as a journalist: in making what he must’ve thought was a good faith effort to report the news and inform the public, Barnett struck a damaging blow to the sort of strategic approach he encourages in his books.

Ahmadinejad hijinks

This week has begun with two noteworthy appearances in the American media by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president is in the U.S. this week to speak at the opening of the UN General Assembly, and recent international media coverage has been accordingly Iran-centric.

More military aid as Saudis continue to hinder war effort

Media reports today indicate that the U.S. will provide an influx of military aid to several allies in the Middle East, to include Saudi Arabia.  According to the BBC, $20 billion in new assistance will be split between the kingdom and several Gulf states.  This comes on the heels of a story in the New York Times last Friday that detailed American frustration at perceived Saudi obstructionism vis-à-vis Iraq.  As far back as January, the Times reports, Saudi officials approached the U.S. government with alleged evidence of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki’s complicity with Iran.  These allegations were dismissed as false by administration officials (and the supporting paperwork declared forgeries).

That the Saudis oppose the Shia government in Baghdad is no secret. US Ambassador to the UN (and formerly to Iraq) Zalmay Khalilzad recently wrote that “several of Iraq’s neighbors — not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States — are pursuing destabilizing policies” in the region.  Administration officials have apparently admitted that this was a reference to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in particular.  So why is the U.S. government seemingly willing to overlook a significant ally’s complete refusal to accommodate American interests on a priority of U.S. foreign policy, namely the stabilization of Iraq and quashing of civil (or proxy) war there?

Hostages and the diplomatic response

Saturday’s IHT contains a very interesting piece by Ian Fisher about the way that governments deal with kidnappings and ransom demands. The article was no doubt conceived as a commentary on the recent prisoner exchange between the Taliban and Romano Prodi’s government, where 5 militants were released from Afghan jails in exchange for the return of Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. Though not mentioned in the piece, Friday’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian navy presents a similar challenge to a Western government; while the IRI doesn’t seem likely to execute the Britons, Jimmy Carter learned that even live hostages are a political nightmare.

Iran op-ed chuckles

I’m finding it a bit difficult to get back in the flow of writing about meaningful things, so let’s start by making fun of someone. Namely one Frederick Grab, who we’re told is a former California AG. This, to open a column that later advocates war with Iran: