The DLC's official position on Iran is weak and unhelpful. Here's a better approach.

[Clarkie1]

You would think the DLC was writing for the Bush administration in their heated, tough-guy rhetoric (posted here today on another thread). Here's a sample of a better approach:

"The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes. While the Saudis and other interlocutors with the Iranians have been helpful, a more direct conversation will accelerate both the application of pressures and the development of the kinds of positive inducements—recognition, admittance to international organizations, resumption of economic relationships, and a regional security structure—that may be necessary for Iran to see the overwhelming advantages of giving up its nuclear weapons programs.

<snip>


"The United States is the largest economic power in the world, and has control, or very near controlling influence, over almost every international institution of significance to the Iranians. I believe we can gain far more from Iran by dispensing some carrots—and can also apply the sticks more effectively—if we are in face-to-face dialogue. Dangling some carrots now in an unconditional dialogue with Tehran while the surge in Baghdad is only beginning could prove decisive."

<snip>

"demand that the Bush administration commence an unconditional dialogue with the regional powers and each of Iraq’s neighbors immediately. This is the next sense-of-the-Congress resolution that is required."

<snip>

"It’s time for the United States to stop isolating those it disagrees with, pretending that other nations have more influence, asking others to carry the burden of dialogue, and leaving our soldiers in Iraq to struggle without an adequate diplomatic strategy to reinforce their efforts. The evidence of the administration’s lack of diplomatic leadership is evident in the new agreement with North Korea, which could have been reached four years ago before the North Koreans acquired fuel for additional nuclear weapons. We cannot afford more delays with Iran while we pursue a misplaced strategy. Congress and the American people should demand that the administration step forward and lead."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.clark.html

"Cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"

http://securingamerica.com/node/2234

The DLC's official postion paper only narrowly refers to talks with Iran as potentially beneficial only to our problems in Iraq:

"So while direct U.S. talks with Tehran may prove useful in stabilizing Iraq, the broader pattern of Iranian misconduct demands a more forceful response from the international community."

The DLC's official position does not even leave open the possiblity of offering Iran any real "carrots" except for lifting sanctions, talking to them, and allowing access to fuel for peaceful purposes:

"The United States would recognize Iran, normalize diplomatic relations, forswear "regime change," lift political and economic sanctions against the regime, and work with the international community to assure Tehran access to fuel for civilian nuclear power."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254217

The DLC's official position seems more closely aligned with the Bush administration than with where we need to be to avert war, in my view. Whoever is writing these position papers needs an attitude adjustment.

[youngdem]

1. "You would think the DLC was writing for the Bush administration in their heated, tough-guy rhetoric

Um, aren't they, essentially?

The corporate, Repuke light wing of our party is the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

2. I disagree.

When there is a definitive link for the approach you've cobbled together from differing sources, let us all know.

Until then, I agree with this:


* Tougher penalties for violating rules against nuclear proliferation. The next step is for the U.N. Security Council to craft stronger economic and political sanctions against the regime, targeted wherever possible at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which runs Iran's nuclear complex as well as its covert aid to radical groups in the region. This will put Russia and China on the spot, but there's no hope of shoring up the world's crumbling non-proliferation regime if these two powers routinely put their commercial interests over collective efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

* Effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, which the United States must supply as a substitute for what will otherwise be a perpetually on-the-brink-of-war conflict between Israel and Iran, alongside the possibility of growing rivalry between Tehran and Sunni Arab states.

* Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy. This doesn't mean giving opposition groups money -- they don't need it and it would only discredit them. It means offering moral and political support to reformers working for human rights, womens' equality, and greater openness and political pluralism.

* A serious push to forge a "grand bargain" with Iran. Tehran would have to suspend its fuel enrichment program, submit to intrusive international inspection and end covert military and financial support for terrorists groups in the Middle East. The United States would recognize Iran, normalize diplomatic relations, forswear "regime change," lift political and economic sanctions against the regime, and work with the international community to assure Tehran access to fuel for civilian nuclear power. This would certainly be a deal worth having, but it should be negotiated within an international framework that includes the world's leading powers and the United Nations.

[Clarkie1]

3. It's all from the same source. I have cobbled nothing together.

Clearly, you have a stake in defending the DLC from any and all constructive criticism. The DLC is position is out of focus.

"The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes. While the Saudis and other interlocutors with the Iranians have been helpful, a more direct conversation will accelerate both the application of pressures and the development of the kinds of positive inducements—recognition, admittance to international organizations, resumption of economic relationships, and a regional security structure—that may be necessary for Iran to see the overwhelming advantages of giving up its nuclear weapons programs."

[wyldwolf]

4. Washingtonmonthly is the same as securingamerica??

Clearly, you have a stake in defending the DLC from any and all constructive criticism.

Clearly you have a stake in discrediting anything the DLC says or does.

[Donna Zen]

6. The usual

a cute vacuous comeback....meaning nothing.

[wyldwolf]

7. the usual from you. No style or substance

[Donna Zen]

5. Keep pumping your DLC wars

and I'll keep trying to protect our country from people with no imagination or morals.

[wyldwolf]

8. where has the DLC advocated war against Iran?

[Donna Zen]

9. They are advocating for strikes if Iran doesn't toe the line

They are pushing this bullshit that Iran can't be dealt with. Listen to Lieberman and Lanny Davis. Hell, the DLC wouldn't even permit the passing of wording that would force bush to return to congress before bombing Iran.

Get this...and get it clearly: bombing Iran will be a blunder of Biblical proportions for the US.

Maybe someone at the DLC had better do a little reading.

[wyldwolf]

10. really? Links?

[Clarkie1]

11. Here's what I have a problem with:

"So while direct U.S. talks with Tehran may prove useful in stabilizing Iraq, the broader pattern of Iranian misconduct demands a more forceful response from the international community"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254217

This impliction is that direct talks with Tehran would not be useful in addressing "Iranian misconduct." "Let's not get carried away," (with diplomacy) the paper says. The implication, in fact, is that direct talks with Tehran is not a "forceful" response, which plays right into Republican talking points.

The only mention of diplomacy after that is "diplomacy backed by the credible use of force." The emphasis remains on using sticks, not carrots. That's not an effective counter to the administration's policy, which is all sticks.

I'm not saying everything in the DLC paper is misguided or all bad, but overall it's weak, in my view.

[wyldwolf]

13. how is this advocating war?

[Clarkie1]

15. I have said nowhere that this is advocating war.

I will say, however, that unless Democrats fomulate a stronger counter to administration policy, and state it clearly, war is a likely outcome.

[wyldwolf]

16. but Donna Zen did and SHE is the person I'm having this discussion with

Look at the thread flow.

[Clarkie1]

19. Oh...sorry (making graceful exit). nt

[mtnsnake]

20. Well, everyone's waiting for your links. Got 'em or not? nt

[Clarkie1]

21. Here's what I have a problem with.

"So while direct U.S. talks with Tehran may prove useful in stabilizing Iraq, the broader pattern of Iranian misconduct demands a more forceful response from the international community"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&conte...

This impliction is that direct talks with Tehran would not be useful in addressing "Iranian misconduct." "Let's not get carried away," (with diplomacy) the paper says. The implication, in fact, is that direct talks with Tehran is not a "forceful" response, which plays right into Republican talking points.

The only mention of diplomacy after that is "diplomacy backed by the credible use of force." The emphasis remains on using sticks, not carrots. That's not an effective counter to the administration's policy, which is all sticks.

I'm not saying everything in the DLC paper is misguided or all bad, but overall it's weak, in my view.

[mtnsnake]

23. Fair enough. nt

[Donna Zen]

12. The substance has been provided by the OP

You have chosen to dismiss the post by calling for links. Your love of saber rattling will lead to more war.

[wyldwolf]

14. the OP doesn't state the DLC endorsed war with Iran

You have chosen to dismiss the post by calling for links.

FACTS? You don't need no stinkin' facts!

[Donna Zen]

17. If we keep following the course you desire

we will surely end up in a war. That tough-guy talk will solve nothing.

The links were in the OP. Again, you chose to dismiss them.

[wyldwolf]

18. why not stay on topic? If the DLC is advocating war, surely we need more than your word for it.

The links in the OP do not cite what you are claiming.

[Boo Boo]

22. You sorta shortened the list of "carrots" a little

"The United States would recognize Iran, normalize diplomatic relations, forswear "regime change," lift political and economic sanctions against the regime, and work with the international community to assure Tehran access to fuel for civilian nuclear power."

Recognition, normalized relations, regime change... The DLC's list might be a little redundant---it's hard to see, for instance, how the currently official policy of regime change could survive formal recognition and normalized diplomatic relations---but these aren't trifling matters, and certainly qualify as carrots. When Iran, under previous leadership, offered the Bush admin a "grand bargain" these were the things they wanted.

This seems like a reasonable statement of principles from the DLC. It sure as hell beats what we've heard from many DLC-aligned Dem politicians in the past, which basically were statements parroting the Bush Admin's saber-rattling rhetoric. I take this as a sign of just how far Clark has been able to move the discussion. Now everybody's at least paying lip service to "talking with our enemies."

The reason Clark has been so effective at this is that he has pushed his position "full spectrum." He carried the message while campaigning for Democrats in the reddest of Red States, as well as the bluest of blue, and he has hammered it home over and over again on FOX News Channel. His appearances on FOX might be the most important and effective thing he's done. He was, by virtue of being employed by FOX, repeatedly given opportunity to rebut Neocon talking points and present an alternative point of view, and repetition is how you get a message to stick rather than falling below the noise level. Clark's FOX gig has been huge.

So I take this DLC piece as confirmation of progress. They haven't exactly been a font of wisdom with regards to foreign policy. Rather, they've typically railed against the "anti-war" left wing of the party, while trying to position Democrats as "Republican Lite" on the war issue. Just the fact that they are staking out a real position in a policy debate as opposed to fearfully counseling political doom if Dems allowed too much daylight between themselves and Bush on WOT issues is a welcome change of attitude. OTOH, the proposals in this statement are conventional wisdom and represent the mainstream of foreign policy expertise. The DLC are (as usual) following in the footsteps of those (like Clark) that have shown real leadership in countering the Administration on this issue.

I'm still waiting for the DLC to earn the 'L' in their name. IMO, their modus operandi is to try to gauge public opinion and position themselves accordingly. That ain't "leadership" no how, no way.