Home > Alex Massie

Saturday 21 November 2009

Who is John Limbert?

Wednesday, 11th November 2009

Well, he's the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs who is, according to Melanie Phillips, a "fifth columnist" who is "in hock to the Iranian regime". Melanie suggests that Limbert's appointment means Tehran "now has its own man running the United States’s policy towards Iran" and asks "Has there ever been a situation where the President of a country delivers his country in this fashion to its mortal enemy?"

May I quietly suggest that this is not quite the case? Until recently Limbert was Professor of International Affairs at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. Before that he enjoyed a 33 year State Department career. Before that he spent several years teaching in Iran. He speaks Farsi fluently. And thirty years ago he was working as an official in the US Embassy in Tehran when, with many others, he was taken hostage and held prisoner for 14 months. In other words, he is one of the ~~relatively few~~ tiny number of Americans who have any real experience of Iran and one of the few who can legitimately be considered an Iran expert. As such, he might seem a rather good appointment.

But no! Because he served - until his new appointment - on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) he must be an agent of the Iranian regime! Come to think of it, his spell as a hostage probably means he's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome! Now it's true that NIAC opposes both military action and additional sanctions against Iran and often warns that outside intervention can rebound to the regime's advantage, but it's no friend of President Ahmadinejad and was quick to denounce his "election" in June as illegitimate. This hasn't stopped some of the usual suspects - ie, The Weekly Standard - from denouncing the organisation as Tehran's guys in Washington. The evidence for this is thin, not least because it requires one to ignore all the times NIAC has sharply criticised the Iranian regime.

Iran hawks have an obvious hostility towards the regime, but that doesn't mean that disagreeing with the hawks means one must agree with, or endorse, the regime in Tehran. Opposing military action does not, "objectively" or not, put you on the side of the Mullahs just because, one presumes, they might not be in favour of being attacked either. If it did then the likes of Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Rubin (both of whom, it should be said, have some "issues" with NIAC but also oppose attacking Iran) would have to be considered "objectively" pro-regime.

(Of course, one can spin this the other way too: if the Mullahs thought their position might be strengthened by an American or Israeli attack then one could claim, using this logic, that the hawks are "objectively" on the regime's side too...)

So, to reiterate: pretending that the only sensible way forward vis a vis Iran is to continue the failed policies that have done nothing to avert or alleviate the current problem is as sensible as suggesting that US policy towards Cuba has been such a triumpant success that it must never, ever be altered in any way whatsoever. This is a very strange way of thinking indeed.

Limbert almost certainly won't satisfy the hawks. He is, after all, a career diplomat who thinks that after thirty years of failure there must be some merit in trying new approaches. That does not mean, however, that he's some kind of patsy who's starry-eyed about the imminent transformation of the US-Iranian relationship. On the contrary, he warns that any improvement will require enormous patience and a good deal of good fortune. And even then it won't be easy. Or even, perhaps, possible. As he wrote in his book, Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History, published earlier this year:

In the years ahead, it is possible that Tehran and Washington both may regain an appetite for resolving problems through negotiations rather than through chest-thumping about armored fighting vehicles. If so, we should be under no illusions that progress will be swift. Talking to Iran will still be difficult and unpleasant.

And:

Talking to Iran, hard and disagreeable as it might be, is likely to be more productive than continuing almost three decades of noisy and sometimes violent confrontation. The U.S. should have no illusions. Discussions with the Islamic Republic are unlikely in the short run to have the kind of positive outcomes the U.S. might wish for. Iran is not going to change its behavior immediately and stop all of its misdeeds in the areas of terrorism, Middle East peace, human rights, and nuclear development. Yet through serious negotiations—even with a regime it dislikes and mistrusts—the U.S. may discover areas of common interest that lurk behind walls of hostility and suspicion.

This all seems sober, sensible, realistic stuff. It doesn't promise anything but nor does it believe that progress must be entirely impossible. Or, rather, it doesn't begin a negotiating process with the presumption that it cannot possibly have any chance, however slim, of success.

The fundamental problem, however, is that the Iranian position is much stronger than Washington's and that's something that neither smart sanctions nor smart bombs seems terribly likely to change. The former, I suppose, will eventually be tried, not least because, pace Melanie, Congress will push for them. But what happens if they don't work and succeed only in enriching - and strengthening - those closest to the regime?

There are dangers in rushing to exhaust options, especially when those options are thin on the ground and not terribly attractive in the first place.

And finally, gloomily, Iran may very well be a problem that confirms that Shimon Peres was right when he said: If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact, not to be solved, but to be coped with over time.

That's a lesson for politicians of all parties, in all countries, of course.

Filed under: Iran (61 more articles) , Washington (102 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (25)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

denverthen

November 11th, 2009 3:08am Report this comment

So is your Spectator colleague a loon, an extremist, a liar, or what? I would have thought you'd have the common decency to say so after this, your latest heap of unsupported suppostion disguised - fairly inexpertly - as pretty bog-standard UK journalist, anti-Israeli goodthink.

Why don't you ask her if she thinks her sources are reliable? Then she can legitimately ask you who, exactly, are yours.

If nowt else, that would sell some copies.

Afternoon Snooze

November 11th, 2009 3:21am Report this comment

Thank you Mr Massie. This a credible critique. Ms Phillips's writings remind me of those delightful books by early twentieth century alarmists in which the Hun was always mustering armies on the north German sandbanks and Bolsheviks with furry hats were sowing revolution.

ndm

November 11th, 2009 3:45am Report this comment

Laura Rozen, of Politico, who knows and cares a lot more about the security of the United States than does Melanie Phillips describes Limbert as a "rather exciting hire" given his extensive background in the Foreign Service.

Beafeater

November 11th, 2009 6:12am Report this comment

"He is, after all, a career diplomat who thinks that after thirty years of failure there must be some merit in trying new approaches."
Thirty years of failure of diplomacy.
A new approach might be to bomb the nuke factories.

shirin tabib

November 11th, 2009 6:19am Report this comment

Regarding John Limbert, I know him personally. He knows zilch about Iran, he has always been a state departments arabist and to tell you the truth, those Iranians who know him, hate his guts. He was cooperating with the mullahs as Sulivan was ,Iranians hate the group all together. Don't raise your hope, Iranians know how to take care of this regime, they don't need people like John Linbert. United States should stop engaging people like him just because he speaks Farsi. We don't want these people to work as our rep, we have enough wise, learned, patriotic people who can do much better than this guy.

thanks

Beefeater

November 11th, 2009 6:36am Report this comment

ndm:

Philby, Burgess and Maclean may have been rather exciting hires.

Afternoon Snooze:

Not certain if you are being ironic.
Early twenty first century alarmists about Ayatollahs may prove as prophetic as those early twentieth century alarmists about the Hun and the Bolshies.

DavidDP

November 11th, 2009 7:10am Report this comment

Phillips would be screaming blue murder had someone written an article like hers about a Jewish member of the administration, or a supporter of Israel.

She's nothing but a bigot. Good job, Alex.

ndm

November 11th, 2009 7:36am Report this comment

Early twenty first century alarmists about Ayatollahs may prove as prophetic as those early twentieth century alarmists about the Hun and the Bolshies

Far more likely is that they will prove as "prophetic" as those early twentieth century alarmists about Jews and non-Aryans.

THX1138

November 11th, 2009 7:57am Report this comment

Dear old Mel is getting more and more "Dagenham...as in three stops beyond Barking”

Hat Tip - Liberal Conspiracy

Alistair Hudson

November 11th, 2009 11:17am Report this comment

denverthen: "a loon, an extremist, a liar, or what?"

The evidence increasingly suggests all three, to be honest.

Fine piece, Alex.

Snowman

November 11th, 2009 11:25am Report this comment

Afternoon Snooze at 3.21: joy to savour, the thought’s right on the button, but the wrapping, oh, what a delight. Where have you been? Stop snoozing and delight some more.

The cunning man in Iran must have learnt from Adolf: One conceals, lies, talks a lot always blaming the other side - all that to gain time to finish the job at hand. The likes of the Limberts matter to him as much as the polished door knobs in his office. Shirin Tabib @ 6.19 has my vote.

Joshua

November 11th, 2009 11:35am Report this comment

One can't help but think that Alex Massie would be slightly more concerned if it were Britain in the crosshairs and not the Jewish state.

Frank P

November 11th, 2009 12:31pm Report this comment

Patricia Shaw

Feel better now pussy-cat? If not, change the Sckoon, that sometimes helps.

Snowman

November 11th, 2009 1:34pm Report this comment

Patricia Shaw at 11.39

Here’s a suggestion that may help. Go to Gaza, stand on any corner street and shout ‘down with Hamas’. Then take yourself to any city in Israel, stand on a street corner and shout ‘down with the Zionists’. Coming to think of it, better reverse the scheduling, so that you can complete the experiment.

Patricia Shaw

November 11th, 2009 1:38pm Report this comment

Don't skulk around like classroom cretins, boys, I know the truth hurts, but at least try to confront it. Argue the point instead of dissing the messenger.

If you can.

Matt

November 11th, 2009 4:19pm Report this comment

Alex Massie writes a paean to John Limbert, the man chosen to serve as the official in charge of the Iran desk at America’s State Department and faults Melanie Phillips and others for having qualms over this appointment. While Mr. Massie notes that Limbert serves on the advisory council of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), he gives short shrift to the concerns people may harbor when they realize a man so closely associated with the NIAC will play a key role in formulating policy towards Iran.

The NIAC is headed by the controversial figure of Trita Parsi who has written a book that , among other canards, promotes the anti-Semitic image that Jews control American foreign policy. Mr. Massie at least admits that the NIAC opposes sanctions and military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb, but he willfully neglects to mention that the NIAC has also opposed support for, and funding of, reformers in Iran. The NIAC has also opposed efforts to broadcast news into Iran, a problematic stance to take given the regime’s constant effort to crack down on an independent media in Iran (recently, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has been taking over media outlets).

Does Mr. Massie have any sympathy for the protesters being jailed, tortured and killed by the Tehran regime? Does he object to a regime that flaunts its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, violates UN Security Council Resolutions, oppresses its citizens, and is the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world? The NIAC has a policy that would take no measures to dissuade the regime from pursuing those policies. Does Limbert agree with that appeasement approach? If not, he should have resigned from the advisory council.

During the campaign, Barack Obama projected an image of listening to all sides of an argument before making a judgment. Given that the NIAC seems to be completely in line with existing American policy towards Iran (no sanctions, no threat of military action; the US has already cut off funding for pro-democracy groups), how likely is it that Mr. Limbert will provide the independent views that should reach the ears of the President?

Snowman

November 11th, 2009 5:44pm Report this comment

Matt @ 4.19

Good informative stuff, thanks.

ndm

November 11th, 2009 6:26pm Report this comment

Snowman writes:

Patricia Shaw at 11.39

I have a much simpler suggestion for Snowman. Go to Gaza where you can witness the effect of the recent Israeli pogrom. Go to the West Bank where you can witness the effect of illegal colonization. Go to East Jerusalem where you can witness the looting of the Palestinian birthright.

The decades-long Israel oppression of the Palestinian people is the human rights catastrophe of the post-war Western World. For the Palestinians, each and every time an American politician talks of peaceful settlement is yet another time that Chamberlain steps off that plane from Munich.

Snowman

November 11th, 2009 7:21pm Report this comment

ndm @ 6.26:

Valid points, I grant you that, except that I find it hard to fault just the Israeli side. Whether it's 30:70 or the other way round I know not, and who does. What cuts it for me is the insistence of the other side that nothing short of wiping the Jewish people out of existence will do. Come on, you can hardly endorse it yourself, or can you?

ndm

November 11th, 2009 7:59pm Report this comment

What cuts it for me is the insistence of the other side that nothing short of wiping the Jewish people out of existence will do.

This is very fanciful stuff. The reality is that the only irrendentism worth worrying about is the actuality of four decades of Israeli irredentism. There is absolutely no prospect of Palestinian irredentism coming to pass no matter how often Israel and its "supporters" might try and scare us about its effect.

Snowman

November 11th, 2009 9:17pm Report this comment

ndm @ 7.59:

Me, but a badly educated Slav, but doesn’t the noun you went for imply territorial cleansing? The side you’re batting for seems to be aiming further than that. Let’s hope that you are right, and it will not come to pass for either side. Still, I respect your stance (no irony here). Peace?

ndm

November 11th, 2009 9:40pm Report this comment

The side you’re batting for seems to be aiming further than that.

I am in the stands watching - not batting for any side. As a spectator I am free to study the statistics and recognize that the figures on irredentism and wanton human casualty do not favour an Israel which has spent an inordinate time playing the ref. Until recently this had proven to be an effective tactic. However, the LRB article, and subsequent book, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt finally drew the crowd's attention to how much unsporting behaviour had been going on and allowed people to observe reality with their own eyes.

Of course, this change does not please those who thrive in deceiving the ref - leading to the now rote chants of anti-Semite and self-hating Jew.

Beafeater

November 11th, 2009 10:55pm Report this comment

Snowman at 11/11 at 9:17:

What a sad retreat we see in your posts here. The Snowman melts. From hearty support of posters, to a confident put down, to thanks, to conciliatory gestures, to outright self-abnegation. The final white flag of "Peace?" waved at ndm is shameful. Buck up, man.
We'll pray for a freeze.

Patricia Shaw

November 12th, 2009 9:47am Report this comment

Nice to see that censorship is alive and well at the Spectator, where two of my posts have mysteriously vanished.

The first stating clearly why Phillips is the real fifth columnist, showing how her obsession for the Israel Right will always trump her support for the UK.

The second suggesting that 'Joshua' might be wedded to Phillips' point of view, though in truth the only reason that Israel is in the cross hairs is because that is where it suits it to be, given the cover it provides for its land grabbing, acts of barbarity and illegality.

If you don't like the points I make, kiddies, come and argue them, cos they
won't go away.

Snowman

November 12th, 2009 12:04pm Report this comment

Beafeater @ 10.55

Snowman’s such a gift, should have stuck to the baronetcy. Still, your point’s well & wittily made except for the praying for bit. A freeze? In an AGW environment?

As to the substance, my blogging friend: Rational arguments get wasted on the likes of ndms. Only time can do it, and more often than not, does. In the meantime, ‘living in harmony’ cannot really harm, can it? Peace?

Post comment