« Kiracofe on US/Israel relations | Main | "Dead Dogmas of the Past" Richard Sale »

11 February 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jackie Shaw

By "tiny interests", I hope he is talking about the Israelis and the Cuban exiles in Miami. I read a book a few years ago by Clyde Prestowitz on trade and he was very critical of the enormous amount of pressure these two tiny interests exert on our policy in the world.

Jose

Thank you, Bibi!

William R. Cumming

Languages?

Halfnhalf

Are you sure it's David Aaron; elsewhere it's Aaron David.

Halfnhalf

Saw Mr. Miller last night on the Lehrer newshour, and he came across as a thoughtful, slow-to-speak, quick-to-think individual.

The question is: will his religion be a problem for the Iranians?

R Whitman

Very impressive on PBS last night. Makes too much sense in a non-ideological, realistic way. I hope he and his attitude are players in the US policy arena in the Middle East.
Pat, who else supports him besides you and me?

Sidney O. Smith III

E Plurisbus Unum trumps ethnic nationalism.

Miller’s stance reminds me of the spirit underlying Moses Jacob Ezekiel’s great monument to religious freedom in Philly -- a monument worth venerating, in my opinion, as it represents the best of our civic tradition.

And according to Wiki, both Miller and his wife are active in Seeds of Peace, so neither he nor his wife are grappling with the inherent racism that infects post modern Zionism. Such racism is worrisome, I must say, because this is the first time in history that ethnic nationalists have the bomb. Ya’ think?

Wonder if the orthodox Jewish rabbis and our American brothers from Williamsburg, Brooklyn -- the Satmar crowd -- would give Miller a thumbs up too. Probably so.

Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Williamsburg, VA. Good combination. Best way to prevent ethnic nationalists from venerating the bomb as it represents the best of their civic tradition.

Green Zone Cafe

I met him several times when times were good.

I don't know, he looks young enough and times have been bad for so long I thought you must have spoken to his high school class.

Are we going to move back into our old embassy?

batondor

I agree wholeheartedly, Pat. I also saw this discussion last night on The NewsHour and had precisely the same reaction without the advantage of personal experience.

On the other hand, I cannot help but wonder whether so many "chiefs" and too few "indians" (as in Mitchell, Holbrooke, and Miller... not to mention Biden and Clinton) will make this a very top-heavy bunch...

Without weighing the individual egos at work (or your personal impressions of them as 'human beings' or as 'experts'... because my views are mixed at best), I'd be interested to hear your view of the difference (as in pros and cons) between as coterie of advisors this highly experienced as compared with a team of 'new faces' being guided with a strong central hand and vision...

mo

Interestingly I read a report about some secret dinner Obama had before becoming President (Secret Dinner) which talked about a Wilson Center and found this interview with Mr Miller.

My intital thoughts (contraty to what I had read about him) was no matter what his bias and politics are he is not remotely reticent about the truth - a rarity in this debate. His own man it seems.

I believe that I second that endorsement if he stays this faithful to himself and his country.

Matthew

Col: I too got to meet Mr. Miller and his wife last year. He is a huge improvement over Dennis Ross. He's a Zionist (isn't everyone in the US Establishment?), but he's not a Kool-Aid drinking Zionist. He particularly disagrees with the Ross Heresy, i.e., preclearing all US position with Isarel before offering them to the Palestinians.

Good luck to him. And a good sign for the USA.

DaveGood

Colonel,

Aaron David Miller sounds a nice chap, no-one appears to have a bad word to say about him, however.....

Is it wise to send a Jew to Iran as the representative of America?

Where I an Iranian Militant of limited intellect but immense fervor, I would regard that as exactly the sort of insult Bush~Cheney expected me to swallow.

DaveGood

DaveGood

Forget "wise"... is it even sensible?

DaveGood

Cloned Poster

Click approval

Yet beneath their unyielding rhetoric lie ironic parallels. Neither side has any interest in talking to the other, and neither at this point believes in a comprehensive settlement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400807.html

DaveGood

Oh great.....

now someone, posting on this thread, who's met him describes him as a Zionist!

Let me ask a straight forward question...

How much does the USA now pay out every month to watch and monitor Iran?

If it came to less then a 200 million every month I'd be surprised, since it's at, or near, the top of a "Watch list" overseen by intelligence agencies that spend tens of billions per year.

What's your main priority? Replacing "Hostile relationship" to something more like "nuetral" and trending towards the "Friendly"" as fast as possible?

Then why appoint a Zionist Jew to be the first American Iran's leaders will be asked to shake hands with?

Meanwhile, around 300,000 American veterans are homeless.

I have no doubt that all of them of them can think of better ways for America's money to be spent.

DaveGood

DaveGood

My apologies...

The latest figure I have for American homeless American Veterans is 200,000. The 300,000 figure is those Americans now back from the Bush-Cheney, West Asian Wars with serious, long term injuries.

I apologise for the confusion.

Matthew

DaveGood: I don't consider it is a plus for an American official to describe himself as a "Zionist." But it just happens to be the dominant belief system in our country. That's reality.

Mr. Miller is a good American public servant who understands that American foreign policy is not a zero-sum game between Israel and the Arab states/Iran. He has stated quite eloquently that America should have a special relationship--but not an exclusive relationship--with Israel. Well, I couldn't care less about Israel, but this is a much wiser position than most American foreign policy experts usually espouse.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And Mr. Miller is infinitely better suited than Dennis Ross for this position.

Byron Raum

DaveGood,

I don't really see a problem with sending a Jew over to deal with the Iranians - they are going to have to deal with reality. As a nation, we don't subscribe to any of the racist ideals that are somewhat more prevalent in that area. In fact, I would rather applaud it as a clever move because it allows the idiots to self-select themselves out - we can really only make progress with people who are moderate enough to want to talk to him. Now, if there are not enough people out there who would be willing to talk to him, then the mission would be doomed anyway.

B.R.

robt willmann

I am hoping against hope that the Colonel's optimistic thoughts about Aaron David Miller as a special envoy to Iran turn out to be correct.

Mr. Miller, however, wrote an article posted on the Internet website of the Harvard International Review (summer 2008) which creates a red warning flag that the harmful rhetoric and covert operations against Iran may not "change" much, if at all.

http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1780/

Mr. Miller describes five sources of Israeli influence on U.S. Mideast policy, calling them "lawyers", as in sources of advocacy--

"The case for Israel is made by five predominant “lawyers”: first, a well-organized, affluent, and powerful community of 5.3 million American Jews, most unaffiliated and uninvolved, but a sizable minority for whom Israel is a non-negotiable issue; second, AIPAC, a powerful lobby which defines what it means to be pro-Israeli in Congress and defines the risks of departing from the consensus; third, millions of evangelical Christians who for reasons of eschatology and shared values are stunningly pro-Israeli; fourth, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and non-Arab Iran, whose extremism generates sympathy and support for Israel; and fifth, the impact of Israeli prime ministers on the worldview of American presidents, which was most evident by Ehud Barak’s relationship with Bill Clinton and its disastrous diplomatic impact during the final years of the Clinton administration."

The venomous description of Iran, Mr. Miller's new focus, is startling: "al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and non-Arab Iran, whose extremism generates sympathy and support for Israel ...." He lumps Iran in with al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, then gives special emphasis to the "extremism" of non-Arab Iran, which, he claims, "generates sympathy and support for Israel". Mr. Miller could more precisely have said that the propaganda regarding Iran disseminated by broadcast and print media in the United States can generate sympathy and support for Israel. The only thing he got right in that little phrase was that Iranians are not Arab, though he fails to tell us their known historical name -- Persians -- perhaps because it would evoke a somewhat positive image of an old, established culture with a rich heritage of art and commerce.

I wonder what Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator and current Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, thinks about Mr. Miller's squirt of belligerent language?

Mr. Larijani apparently graduated from college with degrees in mathematics and computer science and obtained a PhD degree in philosophy. I read most of the documents filed with the International Atomic Energy Agency during the Bush jr. administration's attempt to sucker Iran into a confrontation over its nuclear program under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I have to say that all of Mr. Larijani's filings were legally correct and right on point.

Rumor has it that Mr. Larijani might run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this year for president of Iran. I hope he does and that he wins, even though he is a supporter of the "clerical system" in Iran. Mr. Larijani is an obviously composed, intelligent, careful, and sophisticated man.

If Ali Larijani becomes Iran's president, full diplomatic relations with the United States can and should become a reality. The only entity that would try to block the reinstatement of diplomatic relations would be ... well, you take a guess.

Mr. Miller's Wikipedia entry states that he worked for the U.S. State Department from 1978 to 2003, and from 1988-2003 he was an advisor regarding Arab-Israeli negotiations. It would be interesting to know what his advice was during those not-so-fruitful years in the Middle East.

And what will be the position of Aaron David Miller regarding Iran, including establishing full diplomatic relations with that country, in light of his article cited above and its declaration that the U.S. should maintain a "special" but "not exclusive" relationship with Israel?

What is his "advice" going to be to President Obama?

We should listen carefully to what Mr. Miller and President Obama say about Iran, and watch just as carefully what they do.

We can be sure that Ali Larijani is going to.

LeaNder

I am neither impressed by his selection nor by his statements http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=500270>at the Woodrow Wilson Center

That's basically the Israeli perspective, pseudo-balanced, carefully keeping all main Israeli talking points and adding a breeze of realism in the end: Hamas will not go away.

Q: Is there a chance Hamas could become a moderate political faction?
Miller: The chances that this confrontation would lead to moderating Hamas’s views of Israel are slim to none. A whole mythology and national narrative are being created in the streets of Gaza. A good part of it will propel anger, bitterness, and rage toward Israel and the United States for a good while to come.

Isn't the far more powerful national myth the Israeli myth of the land of my fathers? It's almost an insult to talk about the Palestinian mythological national narrative. But one gets used to http://books.google.com/books?id=4CNVmZIen3AC&pg=PA118&hl=de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0>mirrors in this fratricide. Why not simply call it "rights" based on international law?

Somebody I trust deeply, and who is an expert on the issue, used rather harsh words concerning Aaron David in an interview. Since I perceived it as a signal, I learned that he found many mistakes in Miller's published narrative of his 20 year experience in the so-called peace process. But Miller, the politician, after a while wasn't so interested in having more and more mistakes pointed out, so he ended the email exchange.

I am assuming Ross was too controversial after the bragging internal WINEP memo about his prospective status as Middle East super envoy circled the net. No doubt Miller will be just as loyal as Ross. He even learned that the mythical narratives of power trump reality. He may turn out as Ross' double. After all the Arabs, and obviously the Persians too only understand power.

...Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Babak Makkinejad

All:

Is any of this relevant?

Isn't it much much more important what Mr. Miller's marching orders could be?

Mr. Obama has, so far, failed to articulate any concrete positions in foreign polciy; be that Russia, China, Iran, Mexico, EU, etc.

There is nothing on the table - where is the beef?

Patrick Lang

All

I am NOT being ironic. It is true that I am sometimes ironic. This is not one of those times. I think ADM is a good American, a smart man and a humane man.

The United States is a country that favors the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Most Americans support that policy.

Therefore, the best that can be done is to find a Zioniat who will try to do what is best for all concerned and not just for Israel.

I think Miller would do that. Obama is not going to appoint Zbig and Scowcroft, so let us look for someone whom he might appoint. pl

Ingolf

I read that brief Q & A quite differently, LeaNder.

In the excerpt you chose, he's surely simply stating the obvious; namely, that the war in Gaza can only serve to harden anti-Israeli and anti-US attitudes.

This view (hardly what I'd call pro-Israeli) is reinforced by his answer to the last question:

"Q: What are the prospects for moderates to assume control of Gaza?
Miller: Regardless of how this ends, no Palestinian who has not suffered through and been a part of this confrontation with Israel will have legitimacy in Gaza. The notion of importing a Palestinian Authority-West Bank leadership is an illusion. Only those Palestinians who have borne or suffered the brunt of this confrontation will have the legitimacy to govern."

I also rather liked his answer to the question of whether the media is being fair:

"The “truth” is never served up on a silver platter. Understanding this conflict fairly requires digesting many different sources, points of view, and information. Even then, it’s tough to get it right. No single media source is reliable for understanding the full dimensions of this conflict."

Robert, I wonder if you may not also have misinterpreted his intent. In enumerating the five "lawyers", he isn't expressing an opinion on any of them, simply noting that they are the primary drivers of opinion within the American political context.

Read in this way, I think his comment on Iran is no more than a statement of fact. The perceived extremism (eg some of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric) does serve as an effective advocate for Israel.

Later in that piece, he writes:

"Maintaining Israel’s trust and confidence is vital to our success in Arab-Israeli negotiations. It is quite another matter, however, not to expect reciprocity, not to speak out and impose costs when Israel pursues policies harmful to our interests, such as settlements and land confiscation, or to allow Israeli prime ministers like Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon to determine US tactics and strategy on Arab-Israeli diplomacy."

and

"The real question, however, is whether presidents are prepared to lead in the service of national interest. When they do, domestic lobbies, albeit noisily, almost always follow. One can only hope the next president will understand that."

It seems to me this is about as far as someone who wishes to remain and work within the US foreign policy establishment can go in voicing reservations.

LeaNder

I am NOT being ironic.

Maybe you are right, better somebody connected with an umbilical cord to the land of his fathers than no envoy at all and only divestment, pressure on business that deals with Iran, and sanctions.

A tiny light on the horizon?


Maybe there will be an agreement, maybe some people can keep their jobs, maybe unlike Iraq there won't be millions of dead children? Although from an certain perspective Iran surely looks like an ethnographic bomb too, unlike Europe. ;)

Highlander

Colonel,

Regarding your "I am not being ironic" comment. If you consider Mr Miller as the best thant can be expected from the new administration, what or who would you consider to be the optimal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

November 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad