General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Territory: President Obama
The situation with Iran, the United States, and several other nations reaching initial agreement is the best global news that I have heard in many years. Although rational thought would indicate that violence and warfare is an inappropriate method of conflict resolution at this point in world history, there are those who have been eager to instigate an attack on Iran for over a decade. And, although it appears that President Obama did not have as hands on a role as several other negotiators, the domestic right-wing is blaming him for this surrender.
Likewise, these exact people will deny that President Obama played any role, just as soon as the agreement proves effective. This is not surprising, for many of these are people of limited intellectual ability, and none have ever felt the need to be truthful in their ranting. My own belief -- which might accurately be called half-speculation, half-educated guess, and half-a-glass optimism -- is that both President Obama and John Kerry played a more important role than the public will ever know.
I say that as a person who has actively campaigned for both John Kerry and Barack Obama. And as a person who has, on numerous occasions, expressed both support and disappointment in both men. Yet the deal with Iran stands out, to me, as one of the most important victories of the past two centuries. And I definitely credit them.
Its fun to try to think of historical precedent. The Cuban Missile Crisis? Not really, as it was primarily some insane military commanders and mob bosses who obsessed on liberating Cuba. In a sense, it is perhaps closer to President Kennedys deciding to not go into Laos early in his term. Still, I think President Obama faced a different type of challenge.
When entering this new territory, both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry brought their personal experiences with them. For Kerry, of course, this included both being a soldier in war, and a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, along with his career in the US Senate. For Barack Obama, it included being an opponent of the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, and more recently, learning that even as Commander in Chief, he did not have the control over US involvement in Afghanistan that he anticipated.
Thus, both men know that wars are easy to start -- even a jackass like George W. Bush could start a couple of them -- but difficult to control, or end. The region of earth known as the Middle East has experienced an increased level of violence -- military and para-military warfare -- since Bush-Cheneys aggression destabilized it. There is, of course, various levels of violence in many other regions, as well. It would have been very easy to have had that violence spread to inside Iranian borders.
The players in the negotiations, and in the region, include people at opposite ends of opinions on not only relations between Iran and other nations, but on if warfare is a practical manner of resolving differences. Ive been most interested in four nations: the USA, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. In order to appreciate the significance of the recent agreement, one must be aware of the history of acrimony between Iran and the other three. This includes a very real history between the US and Iran, with a coup (removing a democratically elected government, to install the shah), exploitation of their resources, a hostage situation, and the Iran-Contra scandal (that included Israeli middlemen).
The common folk in the US, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a war between any of these nations. They have the right -- the basic, human right -- to live their lives in peace, to be part of a safe community, and to enjoy their family and friends. But they are too often held hostage to a minority in their own nation, including those who do benefit financially from war (re: Dick Cheney), and those who lust for bloodshed (re: George W. Bush).
Those leaders have the support of some of the 1%, and all of the violence-prone people. In this country, that includes those from the neoconservative ideology. They have power in Washington, and so we witness the republican politicians expressing disgust that we are avoiding war with Iran.
Im aware, as I write this, that it was 47 years ago that Martin Luther King was murdered. That means that it was 48 years ago, that King delivered the most prophetic speech of his career, A Time to Break Silence (aka Beyond Vietnam). In that speech, King noted that if our nation did not reach a higher ground, that the public would be trapped in a cycle of protesting more and more Vietnams, around the globe.
Im thankful that President Obama and John Kerry have helped us avoid this one.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Recommended.
denbot
(9,899 posts)K&R
Hekate
(90,627 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)I'm thankful that President Obama and Kerry have helped take a different path.
Exceptional post, H2O - one of your best!
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)a couple times in my life where having the right people in the right place has made a huge difference on what path humanity takes. This was certainly one of them.
As troublesome as the thought of John McCain in the White House at such a time is, it pales in comparison to the possibility of his having died in office, and Sarah Palin holding the reins of power. (And very little is pale in comparison to John McCain.)
suffragette
(12,232 posts)I shudder even thinking about the damage she would have done and the world we would be living in now.
It makes me think of the sci-if scenario of alternate worlds - it would be a horrendous one.
Thank goodness, that was a path not taken.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)some insane military commanders (altho we definitely had some) and mob bosses "obsessed with 'liberating' Cuba". It was about missiles. You are thinking of the Bay of Pigs debacle, a hot mess brain child of the CIA (effing things up ever since it's creation), the aforementioned insane military commanders and maybe the mob (certainly they would have profited).
That said, bravo to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, and their Iranian counterparts.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)The Cuban Missile Crisis, as the name implies, was indeed about weapons. The conflict with Iran is about (potential) weapons of the same general nature.
I would recommend "Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis," by Robert F. Kennedy (W.W. Norton & Co; 1969) as perhaps the best source of information on the pressure that military "leaders" were placing upon President Kennedy to attack Cuba. It was far, far more intense pressure than in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Every good history of the Cuban Missile Crisis features substantial information on this dynamic -- more, no good history could ignore it -- and it's worth noting that JFK's counterpart in the USSR was under similar pressure.
The mobster comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to a domestic organization that had infiltrated US intelligence, and sought to direct US policy towards meeting its un-American agenda. My attempts at humor are, as a rule, never funny (except to me), and even less so when I'm asked to explain them.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)My point was that their emphasis was not on liberating Cuba, but rather confronting the Soviets.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)What is the last documented statement made by JFK to RFK on the evening of the 13th day?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)H2O Man
(73,528 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Ciao.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)alfredo
(60,071 posts)tactics of JFK.
I remember our school had an air raid drill right as the naval blockade began. The timing was regrettable, many of the students were crying and cowering. They weren't convinced it was a drill.
Duck and cover was a joke and we knew it.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and thus easier to spot. They are still rarely confronted though.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)and were Eisenhower partisans. They wanted a wider war in Vietnam, and wanted Castro overthrown.
Their hatred was out in the open. I always suspected they had something to do with JFK's death.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)"Washington Rules" by Andrew Bacevich. Talks a lot about that era...and your suspicions don't surprise me a bit.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)assassination, but made clear the hatred the hawks held for JFK.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)alfredo
(60,071 posts)malaise
(268,870 posts)Thoughtful as always
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)Last night, while reading through DU:GD, I saw your OP on Martin. The end of my OP was in response to that .... I think that this is the most significant international event since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that King would approve of President Obama's handling of it, 100%.
spanone
(135,815 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Obama and Kerry deserve our thanks for taking the high road on this.
It is a huge step in the correct direction.
tblue37
(65,273 posts)tblue37
(65,273 posts)That was rather strange.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Huge K & R
madokie
(51,076 posts)putting things in perspective