The 54th Hostage

The good news?  Roxana Saberi, Fargo native, former Miss NoDak and NPR reporter, held for three months in an Iranian prison on apparently-bogus espionage charges, will be released soon:

Saberi, a 31-year-old who was born in the United States and who has reported for the BBC, National Public Radio and other media, was detained in the Islamic state more than a month ago.

The perhaps not so good news?  She may have been released because the Obama Administration gave the Iranians what they wanted (emphasis added):

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that Tehran immediately release the journalist during a news conference on Thursday at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels.

She earlier said the United States planned to invite Tehran to a conference on Afghanistan, in a first overture to Iran.

The United States is reviewing its isolation policy on the Islamic Republic, including whether to open up a low-level diplomatic office there.

On the one hand, good thing that Saberi’s been released.

On other other; if indeed the release was accompanied by big concessions from the US, that’s probably not a great precedent.

UPDATE:  My NARN cohost Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (thanks for the link!) notes:

The Bush administration also made overtures towards Iran on Afghanistan on a similar basis; the holdup wasn’t a lack of US invitation, but Iranian recalcitrance on accepting a more public connection with the US on the issue.  The Bush administration had conducted talks with Iranian representatives on Iraqi security on several occasions over the last few years, so this isn’t exactly a new concept, and wouldn’t have triggered Saberi’s release.

There may still be a stinking concession at the heart of this, but the Afghanistan conference won’t be it.

I could have written more clearly. 

The US and Iran have been talking – on some low, diplomatic level or another – for years.  Every administration has had some sort of dealing with Teheran.  And Ed notes correctly that we have worked with Iran on things like Afghanistan in the recent past, and that the Afganistan meetings aren’t a quid pro quo for releasing Saberi.

My biggest concern – let me write it clearly this time – is this: given that Tehran’s mullas have always acted (as any government normally will) in Iran’s government’s interest, and that the Iranians have just gotten away with kidnapping an American (ten days after Obama’s inauguration, in fact), is the old ’70s-’80s tactic of grabbing Americans back on the table as a means of exacting concessions from a weak, inexperienced president?  Just like 30 years ago?

Time will tell.  But I don’t think this is a good start.

32 thoughts on “The 54th Hostage

  1. Pingback: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Iran to release Saberi

  2. I guess it can be said the bammy bowed to Iran.

    Anyone seen the Presidential knee pads?

  3. And this is bad … because the previous incredibly STUPID strategy was working SO very well?

    Including Iran in the resolution of problems in Afghanistan, given the common border, is a very sensible idea. They’ve expressed a desire to curtail the drug trade hemorrhaging out of Afghanistan. That was being negotiated before the Saderi incident in any case, so quid pro quo hardly seems logical. What we are getting in return is better leverage with the Iranians regarding their nukes, a potential change in the Iranian position towards Israel – if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians, possibly a two-state resolution to that conflict.

    Ultimately, this could go a long way towards restablizing the region we so thoroughly DEstabilized invading Iraq. This gets us a lot, for very very little. How much it could get us will depend quite a bit on how the next Iranian election goes; but this puts us in a much stronger position to take advantage of those developments. A bonus cherry on the top is that our NATO allies seem much happier with our new direction.

    Not sure who it is in this administration that has their brain engaged, but there is definitely a much better intellect calling the shots. Finally.

  4. Well, I guess if you think middle east destabilization began with the Iraq War, then I can see how you are impressed. If One is more versed in the history of the region, then Sorry, not so much. Replacing “stupid” policy with “retarded” policy (potentially “insane” policy) is not really a sign of intellect.

  5. Obama’s a weak, please-everybody terrorist-negotiator.

    How long before he’s giving the Mullahs gifts and selling them weapons?
    /jc

  6. “They’ve expressed a desire to curtail the drug trade hemorrhaging out of Afghanistan.”

    Yeah, yeah…we should embrace the Quds Poppy Force! Think about it; how much of a defense could a flower put up against an IED? *It’s perfect!*

  7. Dog Gone said:

    “if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians”

    Like allowing some of the rocket attacks and suicide bombings slide? If only they’d pull out of Gaza, then everything will be good, right?

    http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

    “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
    “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad”
    “Jews are a people who cannot be trusted”
    “Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews”
    “We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity”

    Oh yeah, it’s the Israeli’s who look un-“reasonable”.

  8. Dog Gone said:

    “if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians”

    1944: If we could just persuade the Jews to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the indigenous Germanic peoples……

  9. Can’t let Slash & RickDFl cherry-pick their Mideast history without mentioning that the origin of the USA’s problems in that region lie with the ineffectual Jimmah Carter (D), namely the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in Nov 1979. This was an act of war. Jimmah’s stupid response to the taking of American personnel as hostages made the US appear weak. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred just a month after the Iranians took the the American embassy. This was clearly a response to perceived US weakness in the region. Bin Laden’s Al Qaiada, as we know, had its origin in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
    If Carter had handled the collapse of the Shah’s government with greater competence & less hand wringing, there would have been no hostage crisis & no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in ’79, there would have been no Iraq-Iran War, no Gulf War in 90-91, and no Iraq War in 2003. There would be no Hezbollah and no Al Qaida, the World Trade Center would still be standing, and three thousand fewer American civilians would have been killed bi Islamic terrorists.

  10. So, do explain to me how it is that not having any sort of formal diplomatic relationship worked to the benefit of either the US, or Ms. Saberi.

    If I were to guess what we gave up, if anything, to get Ms. Saberi out of Iran, it would be that we unfroze some of the assets we have held for a long time. Buying her out with their own money – works for me. And most likely strengthens those moderate pro-US semgments of the population at the same time in advance of their next round of democratic elections.

    The problems with the fall of the Shah were not limited to Carter. We had backed a ruthless, and corrupt regime that was as brutal in many ways to the Iranian population as Sadam was to the Iraqis. Carter did make some progress in helping to stabilize the relationship at least between Egypt and Israel, formerly the most bitter of enemies. That effort has stood the test of time; this year marks 30 years of peace and limited cooperation between the two countries.

  11. We had backed a ruthless, and corrupt regime that was as brutal in many ways to the Iranian population as Sadam was to the Iraqis.
    And how does this differ from the current regime?

    Carter did make some progress in helping to stabilize the relationship at least between Egypt and Israel, formerly the most bitter of enemies.

    After their losses in the wars of ’48, ’67, and ’73 the Egyptians were ready for peace. Also, throughout the 70’s Egypt was drifting away from the Soviets and towards the Americans, primarily because we had more money. It took no great diplomatic skill to forge an Egypt-Israeli peace treaty in 1978 in return for American aid. Carter was merely competent in achieving this.

  12. Begin & Sadat had already worked most of the details out, Jimmy hosted the party.

    As Mitch pointed out, it’s not the diplomatic ties that are the problem, & those ties existed during the Gee-Dub’s era as well. The potential problem is what the terms of negotiation were. perhaps they were legitimate & helpful to the overall situation without exposing our soft fuzzy belly. However, if they were Carteresqe capitulations that exposes a potential to exploit the weakness of this administration, then we are fast-tracking back to the future. Carter’s willingness to abandon the Shah was seen as a weakness, not a diplomatic hand extended in friendship. When Khomeini met with Carter & saw his gelatinous spine & willingness to give Iran nearly anything they wanted, combined with Congress’ unwillingness to back up our promises to our allies in Viet Nam, thus loosing that war, Gave the Ayatollah the impression that he was dealing with a paper tiger… He was.

    I believe you are familiar with the results. If that is the path the PBO intelligentsia have us wandering down then it is a HUGE blunder into extremely dangerous waters.

  13. if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians

    Like what? Commit suicide?

  14. “Carter’s willingness to abandon the Shah was seen as a weakness.”

    Or perhaps it was Carter’s unwillingness to abandon the Shah that was a sign of weakness. After all, when your bought and paid for local dictator gets run out of town it makes you look weak. Especially when you don’t punish him for his failure. Best thing to do is kick him to the curb for embarrassing you. Otherwise your local muscle is going to sit on their ass and wait to get bailed out by the Marines.

    Carter should have put the Shah on the next plane to Iran and said ‘see what happens when you let down the USA’.

  15. Mitch,

    Iran pushed Bush around for 5 years after the Iraqi invasion – they funnelled weapons, ammunition, and money to the Shiaa. Saying that they suddenly got adventurous with Saberi is silly. But who knows, perhaps they felt that they could trade arms for hostages like they did under Reagan?

    Carter’s failure in Iran was in NOT recognizing the coming tide and acting to meet it face to face, and as a result, having yet another Cuba on our hands, a nation lead by an unfriendly dictator replacing the dictator we propped up. It wasn’t in not being ‘tough enough’ with the Iranian revolutionaries, unless you (neo-cons, not just Mitch) are stupid enough to believe we could have actually attempted to subjegate a nation by force which was bordering the Sovient Union in the midst of some of the highest tensions of the Cold War. If so, my question is, since Reagan didn’t do it, do you really think it was feasible?

  16. RickDFL has this weird fixation on punishing our allies and rewarding our enemies. Sounds like his idea of foreign policy isn’t all that different than Carter’s.
    RickDFL also seems to have strange ideas about where the Shah lived in exile after the Islamic revolution. Not knowing anything about a subject has never kept him from blathering his opinons before. Don’t expect that will change soon.

  17. Which is why I simply chose to pat him on the head. Peni’s response is just about as ridiculous.

    Carter did meet the challenge face to face, & the Islamic Revolutionaries de-panted him. I love his moral superiority:

    [Neo-cons (who else)]are stupid enough to believe we could have actually attempted to subjegate a nation by force which was bordering the Sovient Union in the midst of some of the highest tensions of the Cold War.

    Instead we subjugated a nation by neglecting them, allowing a far worse dictator into power. Exposing the post Viet Nam weakness of a Democrat Congress & the worst president to ever serve, which came shining through like the sunlight reflecting off of Jimmy’s pasty white behind!

    “my question is, since Reagan didn’t do it, do you really think it was feasible? “

    Really? That’s your question? here’s your answer: That opportunity was lost when Carter failed to back our ally in 1979 & he was dead before Reagan was elected. Since Carter blew it in such a fantastic way, we had to try to contain them by propping up Saddam Hussein.

    So the next time you are gazing into your navel, imagine how different things could have been if Carter hadn’t been such a fool. Then hope you haven’t elected an even bigger fool.

  18. With the Shah we had no ‘Plan B’. It was either the unpopular Shah kept his hold on power or . . . we got nuthin. At the very least we could have backed the Iranian Kurds & manufactured an autonomous zone for them out of ‘humanitarian considerations’.

  19. “RickDFL has this weird fixation on punishing our allies ”
    What good is an ally that fails catastrophically? When they fail in that way, they should be punished. That is how you keep your allies strong.
    “RickDFL also seems to have strange ideas about where the Shah lived in exile after the Islamic revolution.”
    And you seem to have strange ideas about the inability of the United States to get other countries to do them a favor. Do you think Egypt, Morocco. or Mexico would have denied a U.S. request to send the Shah packing.
    “we had no ‘Plan B’”
    Pretty much sums up the conservative movement.

  20. I don’t get it, RickDFL. Are you trying to defend yourself from the charge that you want to punish our allies and reward our enemies? Your last comment has the opposite effect.

    “we had no ‘Plan B’”
    Pretty much sums up the liberal movement.

    See anyone can do it!

  21. Winner of the stupidest comment of the thread award:

    “if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians” – Dog Gone Idiot

  22. Troy says:
    “Like allowing some of the rocket attacks and suicide bombings slide? If only they’d pull out of Gaza, then everything will be good, right?”

    Right now the moderate parties in Gaza have no ability to get rid of the exremists on their own. No, of course I don’t condone rocket attacks and suicide bombings on Israel, and yes, I do recognize a need to defend against that.

    But what advantages has being in conflict for the entire history of Israel as a country provided them? Certainly not any kind of security. If they can achieve a real peace, without the problems they have being at odds with the Palestinians, they can apply enormous resources towards more productive efforts than defense. That would benefit the jews, christians AND palestinians/Arab population. Israel had far more support for their continued existence from their minority populations in the past, and they could again. I don’t see them ever giving up their territorial advantage in Jerusalem for the capital of a Palestinian state, but it would be more plausible that the city becomes a true international venue.

  23. Not quite as bad a Peev.

    put another nail in the coffin of the idea of Isreal – penigma 01.13.09 – 9:01 am

  24. K-rod says:
    “K-Rod Says:

    May 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
    Winner of the stupidest comment of the thread award:

    “if we can persuade the Israelis to start discussing a more reasonable position towards the Palestinians” – Dog Gone Idiot ”

    Been to Israel K-rod? How fluent were you in either Hebrew or Arabic? I was there for a period of weeks, travelled all over the country, and had the privilege of meeting ordinary Israelis, both Jewish and Palestinian, even being invited into their homes. I made the effort NOT to be the typical tourist, to be able to speak with people in their own language. (Btw – they have some really freaky superstitions about red hair….as near as I could suss out, touching red hair was supposed to be some kind of potency enhancer, but if the person whose hair was touched got angry, their favorite ‘bits’ might shrivel up and fall off. Definitely added an interesting dimension to learning the languages from native speakers.)

    The peace with Egypt has worked, and there are substantial segments of both groups that want a similar arrangement to work between Palestinians and Jews. The arabic population in Israel and surrounding countries has gotten stronger in relation to the capabilities of Israel. They don’t have the kind of successes anymore that they had in the 60’s and 70’s. The Palestinian population of Israel is growing faster than the other demographics. Peace, including a two-state peace, IS a realistic option. More realistic than expecting the Israeli government to be in conflict indefinitely.

  25. You have been in Israel, Dog Gone, for far less time than the people who live there and who want nothing more than to kill each other.

  26. If you can’t speak either Hebrew or Arabic then you just better shut up, Terry!

    “put another nail in the coffin of the idea of Isreal” – peev

    “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” – Golda Meir

  27. Dog Gone said:

    “Right now the moderate parties in Gaza have no ability to get rid of the exremists on their own”

    Yes, and I see nothing in your writing that will solve that problem, including having the Israelis “discuss” more stuff.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.