Another McCain Foreign Policy Gaffe

Deception or ignorance? That seems to be the question every time John McCain makes a foreign policy gaffe. Whether its Sunnis or Shi'a or yesterday on the nature of Iran's government. Joe Klein reports:

At a press conference here, I just asked John McCain about why he keeps talking about Obama's alleged willingness to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has no power over Iranian foreign policy, rather than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who does. He said that Ahmadinejad is the guy who represents Iran in international forums like the United Nations, which is a fair point. When I followed with the observation that the Supreme Leader is, uh, the Supreme Leader, McCain responded that the "average American" thinks Ahmadinejad is the boss.

Let's be clear: Iran has a very complex system of government with varying institutions, but at the top of it sits Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially has only accountable to the Council of Guardians made up of clerics, many of whom are appointed by Khamenei. So, Ahmadinejad is not the leader. And as the Council on Foreign Relations explains, especially in the area of foreign policy, Ahmadinejad has very little influence.

On top of that as Klein points out, the president's job is to educate the public on questions of policy. So if the "average American" thinks that Ahmadinejad is the ultimate leader of Iran, it's up to the president to dissuade them of this notion -- not reinforce it. Back in 2002 more then half of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and President Bush did nothing to disprove this assumption (In fact, while never directly claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 the administration did everything it could to reinforce the notion). That doesn't mean our policy should be based on those false assumptions.

Then there is the fact that in 2003 McCain and other conservatives dismissed efforts by Democrats to engage the reformist President of Iran Mohamed Khatami claiming that he had no real power. Now that the president is a hardline demagogue he is the sole voice in Iran that matters. That seems convenient.

Considering the bellicose language and all the speculation about war with Iran, you'd think the Republican nominee for president who consistently touts his foreign policy expertise should either get better briefings on the structure of Iran's government or start exercising that "straight talk" he is supposedly so famous for.

Update: Adam Blickstein has more on McCain's philosophy in 2003 to dealing with a moderate Iranian President:

So, for McCain, when the moderates held elective office, the religious clerics were the final arbiters of Iranian politics and policy. But now that a more hard-line president has control in Iran, he is characterized as the true leader and the religious clerics are marginalized. The ideology of Iran's presidents may have differed over the years, but this in no way changes the fact that the political structure itself over time doesn't change, and largely hasn't changed, since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Comments

[mrjonessr41]

This is an excellent article, I am a political junkie and I did not know that Ahmadinijad had such little influence, seems he has more influence in the minds of the republican party than in real life,that being said. It is pretty easy to fool the bulk of the population,who turns the channel at the very sight of anything political.

[Liberal2]

What you seem to miss is that Ahmadinijad is a somewhat like Dana Perino, speaking the words that the dear leader can't actually say but wants out there anyway.

[KidsGoneNow]

I agree, this is an interesting piece. I am so frustrated every time interviewers let incorrect information pass unchallenged in the MSM - I rarely watch anything anymore . The reason people are so stupid and follow blindly like sheep is that the "journalists" (and I really hesitate to use that term) never provide the facts - they just let the spin and incorrect knowledge of their "guests" go out to the viewers as facts. When enough people say it, suddenly it's accepted as true fact - whether it is or not. The Bush administration were masters of this. No one dared challenge them - you would be branded as unpatriotic. The MSM let it go so long, now they're just lazy.

[ConservativeFootSoldier]

The bottom line is the United States should be firm in stating that these terrorist thugs in Iran lack sufficient credibility to be engaged in talks on any level, whether the individual at the table is wearing a robe or a bad sport coat. As usual, you miss the point amid your zeal to belittle McCain.

[jayburd]

John McCain is being dishonest with the American people and we're calling him out. How is that belittling the man?

[faceman888]

I think the point of the article was to point out that McCain is weak where it is supposed that he is strong (foreign policy and national security). I don't think that the author of the article made any judgement as to the relative wisdon of talking to the Supreme Leader or the President. That might be a good point for another piece. I think McCain is proving that he underestimates the internal complexities of the region as the current administration does (or at least did).

[mmpost]

Why is that the bottom line? What do you stand to gain by totally dismissing a sovereign nation because you don't agree with them? Your understanding of the world and others who believe the same as you do are partly the reason we are in this mess we are in. People who think like you do are becoming less relevant in the world because you are no longer capable of seeing the big picture. Thanks to this caveman mentality you share with GW and McPappy, we are in a weaker position than we once were. Therefore, we must try a new approach. We can no longer consider it a gift to speak to the POTUS, especially when you have an idiot in the office. Actually, no one agrees with you that we shouldn't engage in talks on any level. Do you just want to have enemies just to have enemies? Do you want our kids to fight the same wars because people like you refuse to talk to others as if you are the only ones who can be right about the issue? One last question, please explain one good thing that has come from this we-don't-l­ike-you-so­-we-can't-­talk foreign policy?

[Liberal2]

Dear kkkonserva­tivedickho­lder, credibility??? Is Bush credible as a *LEADER*? No, but he's got the power. Credibility is not the issue, power is. Iran has sufficient power to make the lives of petroleum customers very unpleasant. That's what you're too dim to realize.

Is McInsane credible as the leader of America? Absolutely not. And your gaggle of idiots will prove it when he loses the GE. On Nov. 5 even rethugs will be askin' "John McWho?"

[MajorKong]

As long as our policy towards Iran is regime change (and it is) they have no incentive to talk to us. They're not going to negotiate themselves out of existence.

[El]

I doubt the "average American" knows a damned thing about Iran. I'd guess that the "average American" probably can't even name the speaker of the House. Maybe not even the Vice President.

[daddigrace]

It was indeed Ronald Reagan, not Carter, who was the first president to formerly recognize the PLO.

[ecsiwingo]

Let me get this straight you never make mistakes. It is clear that you have taken a side. What ever happened to unbiased reporting. Given the picture you printed you are only out to make the other side look bad at any costs. You are not a reporter .....you are a propagandist!

[AnotherToerag]

Sure, everyone makes mistakes. To make mistakes on this scale, and repeatedly, it what is frightening about McCain.

[dagnew]

Excuse me, but these are the kinds of mistakes a president shouldn't make. We've all ready had over seven years of these 'mistakes.­' We don't need another knucklehead in the White House.

[JimR]

That's a pretty damn big mistake.

[Puller58]

ecsiwingo, is there a way McCain's side looks good? Pray tell how?

[americanwomaninpa]

At least McCain knows how many States there are! Obama is under the impression that there are 58.

that was one of his most recent gaffes. Lets face it, its going to happen, even to Mr. Obama.

[jayburd]

Yeah, and that was a real news maker, too, wasn't it?

There's a difference between a verbal gaffe and just plain being wrong. Saying "I've visited 58 states" when you're sleep deprived is a far cry from saying "Ahmadinejad is the real leader of Iran," and sticking to your guns even though the facts are against you.

[faceman888]

There is a huge difference between a verbal gaffe as to a number of states visited and not being able to identify the head of state of the country that is presumed to be one of the greatest threats to our security. One is misspeaking and the other is ignorance.

[Mattjoe]

Well of course Johnny M has to tow the line - it's hard enough to manipulate your "average" folk into war these days much less after pragmatic elitists engage in big friendly “hug n kiss” sit downs with the "Axis of Evil". Not just the risk of stability at stake, what about diminishing the credibility of those Photoshop’d Google Earth “intelligence” photos that will inevitably be submitted as evidence of Iran's WMD?

Should anyone buy into the Republican ruse that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (or his version of Dick Cheney) is merely a crazed frothing extremist that cannot comprehend diplomacy.­.......nev­er heard anyone say that about Sharon? No, but of course, be it Ahmadinejad or you or I - to criticize Israel is un-American and blatant anti-Semit­ism.....

Nonsensical rhetoric.

Take care of your own yard first people - This comical administration has messed up your campsite and dozens abroad, many times too many. Allowing Repugs via McCain to “build another case” for war – proves you are every bit as “average” American you can get.

[kdubbg]

Yesterday John McCain was very dismissive of Barack Obama because it's Obama's position that Iran is NOT as serious a threat to the US as the USSR was during the height of the cold war; McCain apparently thinks it is.

An Obama Spokesperson pointed out that during the cold war there were thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the US.

McCain shut up.

[booksnmore4you]

More about enemy creation from James Wellman is associate professor and chairman of the Comparative Religion Program in the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004168377_wellman07.html

[booksnmore4you]

You miss the point. The whole ides is _enemy-creation_.

Enemy-creation is fastest and surest way to mobilize patriotic sentiment among the less thinking. This was the Rovian/Bush tactic with Saddam Hussein.

Ahmadinejad is the perfect new bad guy to hold up and feed to the less thinking public - he's the new "enemy" created to "build" support for attacking Iran. Ya gotta get the bad guys, ya know. Never mind he is mostly a figure head and without power. That's not relevant.

What is relevant is whether Ahmadinejad serves the purpose of whipping up support for an attack on Iran. I'm sure the right-wing radio and television talkers will dutifully play their part in this next round of enemy-creation, as before. The American people ought revolt against the idea, however.

[jayburd]

It all boils down to how Obama handles his language and whether or not he can dominate the news cycle. Last week he said on the appeasement issue, "They're deceiving you. They're not telling the truth." Tough, but not tough enough. Nobody on the right wing of note took issue with that statement and the mainstream media didn't really discuss it. I guarantee you that if Barack Obama looks into the camera and says "John McCain is either ignorant of the truth or lying to the American people," it will make bigger news.

[lorca1986]

Let's see -- 8 years with a president who seems unable to grasp even rudimentary knowledge versus 4 years of a wanna-be who also is lacking in rudimentary knowledge versus my eight-year old grand niece who can outhink these two noble men. VOTE DEMOCRAT.

[Donald Wolberg]

Mr. Goldenberg should be mnore careful when he comes to fuzzy conclusions and allows politics to color analysis. He seems to be more concerned about who makes the trains run on time (or in this case the need for a nuke) than iwho put the trains on the track. Mr. Goldenberg's lesson in Iranian civics is less than convincing. The Iranian looney crowd puts foward who ever it desires to utter whatever it desires, or else nothing would be said. McCain is correct in that the bellicose nature of the Islamofascists is part bravado but also the language of state-sponsored terrorism. It is unfortunate that Mr. Goldenberg does not show more concern for fact that the Iranian version of intolerance has killed Americans. Mr. Goldenberg should perhaps spend more time demanding action by the Congress without courage to send a clear message that we will not tolerate such actions.

[mmpost]

Please enlighten us with your proof of Iranians killing Americans. Would it be the same proof provided by this administration? You, sir, should be more careful when you parrot Bush and Cheney's claim of finding weapons that were manufactured in Iran. I don't doubt the possibility of this, however, you shouldn't state it as a matter of fact. To your point about the "Iranian looney crowd", who would this crowd be? You seem to be making the point Mr Goldenberg was making. The supreme leader and other clerics put Ahmadinejad forward to utter what they desired.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Certainly, I must as always pay homage to your mastery of things fuzzy, particularly anything logical.

[mommamia526]

Yes, there is *bellicose* language about Iran. There also comes *bellicose* language out of Iran, such as statements by Ahmadinejad about Israel, about and to the UN, that Iran will not abide by UN resolutions on nuclear power, or the legitimacy of Israel. Then there is Iranian support to Hezbullah and Hamas and other *freedomfighters*, and its insertion into the situation in Iraq. Hezbullah and its Palestinian contingent in Lebanon is a shadow government and nation within a nation. As for Hamas, it appears to have problems not only with Israel, but also with Egypt and Jordan. There is a lot going on, and it is not only language, *bellicose* or otherwise. I do not think that clearing those matters up to the American public will change the situation in the ME. How, for example, will it affect the situation between sunni (Saudi Arabia) and Shia? We would have to make many, many more things clear and transparent. After that, transparent, or not, things will still be unchanged. Iranian government also has a problem with the Bahai religion and its clerics. Did I not hear that the Iranian government has put Bahai clerics in prison just in the last few weeks. And how does that square with religious freedom in Iran?

[MourningDude]

Don't forget that they have essentially a national holiday where the entire country chants "Death to America" in honor of the radicals overtaking the US Embassy in 1979.

Their parliament chants "Death to America" as it passes new uranium enrichment programs.

Of course that's nothing new, since most mosques in the country chant "Death to America" every Friday at the end of their services.

Obama thinks this behavior is so reasonable that he doesn't even ask them to stop, and will meet with them without any such preconditions.

No wonder people are worried about his naivety and view him as a foreign policy neophyte.

[SeanOcali]

"Obama thinks this behavior is so reasonable"

Where do you get off spewing such nonsense? Go back to 3rd grade.

[SeanOcali]

"Obama thinks this behavior is so reasonable"

Where do you get off spewing such nonsense? Go back to 3rd grade.

[mmpost]

How many times have you been to Iran?

[SeanOcali]

I am no means defending this powerless puppet, but every time I see some necon talk about this guy, they mention the whole "Israel should be wiped off the map" thing that he supposedly said. That statement is considered to be very poorly translated, and from my understanding, what he really said was that in the future the country of Israel will not exist on a map.

There is a huge difference. The necon spin using the false interpretation suggests that he is threatening to violently destroy the nation of Israel. Yet the true translation has no such connotation.

I can say "In the future, the Ayatollah will no longer exist" because I believe Iran will eventually reform from within. Then someone with an agenda comes along and mis-translates that into Farsi suggesting that I was threatening to kill the guy. It's essentially the same thing.

The guy is a whacko. But this whole threatening to wage war against Israel is quite the fear mongering. Israel would wipe out Iran in a heartbeat if it ever came to that. They wouldn't even need our help.

[mmpost]

Sorry but you don't seem to have your facts straight. If i'm not mistaken, Iran has signed the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). This entitles a country to nuclear power. Israel has never signed this treaty yet it is speculated they possess several nuclear weapons. Please point me to the transcripts of the speech when Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map. I would like to see them in Farsi and the translated version if you have them handy. Thank you so much.

[AnotherToerag]

Your reference about the UN is weak since the US completely violated the UN rules by invading Iraq in a war of aggression with the intent to overthrow the (at the time) current government.

[metys]

Due to his service records, I understood that we gave him the benefit of the doubts when he started the gaffes.
But when it looks like a duck, act like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are ... it's a duck.

McCain is plain incompetent on forein policy. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

[MourningDude]

"Update: Adam Blickstein has more on McCain's philosophy in 2003 to dealing with a moderate Iranian President:"

The point is that foreign policy is based on the lowest common denominator.

If you want to get approval by the UN Security Council, you need to get approval from ALL those countries with a veto. If you have one hard-line element opposing action, it doesn't happen.

Ignoring the hard-line elements in the power structure of Iran is naive and could lead to disastrous consequences.

[mmpost]

Are you aware of how many times there have been UN resolutions against Israel? Were you also aware of the only "hard-line" element opposing many of those resolutions came from...gue­ss who...the US. You can't have it both ways.