A chance meeting with Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren

[Welcome Mondoweiss readers! Welcome Naked Capitalism readers! Welcome Huffington Post readers! Welcome Corrente readers!]



Yesterday morning, I was in line outside a Somerville, MA breakfast joint, and who should come around introducing herself to the queued patrons but Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Elizabeth Warren?

When she worked her way to where I was standing, I asked about her hawkish policies toward Iran, which are described thusly on her website:

Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.

I asked why her stand is that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, when even the Obama administration admits there is no evidence Iran is building nuclear bombs or has decided it wants to.

Warren said she thinks the data says they are working on nuclear weapons.

I repeated that, no, even the administration says there's no evidence of that.

She said she'd look into it, saying it's important that political statements not to add fuel to the fire. I considered pointing out that the "fire" is our own creation, but I wanted to get to one more policy matter before she moved along.

I noted that the US is implementing what some Democrats call "crippling sanctions" against Iran, which seems awfully cruel, especially for something we don't even think they're doing, and added that I can't support that. I had forgotten that her official statement specifically advocated such sanctions, ominously urging "no escape hatch," otherwise I'd have asked why she'd enthusiastically joined that chorus.

Again, she said she'll look into it, and she thanked me for the helpful comment, as she began moving up the line.

I wish I'd gotten into the bigger ethical issue, "so what if Iran builds nuclear weapons," what gives us the moral right to kill Iranians over the effrontery to have the same weapon many other countries have.

Another great point Arthur Silber has repeatedly made makes me wonder if I missed the mark with my questions:

I maintain that you must always argue the policy, and that you must never argue about the intelligence. To the extent you argue the intelligence, you are doing the ruling class's bidding.

In the moment, I decided that the dissonance of Warren staking out a position plainly to the right of the warmongering Obama, who recently called compliance with some set of US demands a "last chance" for Iran, would be the best and quickest way to get her attention about the dreadfulness of her position. In such a brief, impromptu encounter, I don't think it would have been possible to plumb the fullness of what's wrong with her policy statement, which includes other questionable assumptions and assertions beyond those I've cited.

Warren would have to change her tune rather dramatically—not just to couching saber-rattling and sanctions with the administration's weasel-wording about "nuclear weapons capability"—for me not to consider this position alone very good reason to withhold my support.

* * *

I care much more about policy than niceties (who knew?), but for those who are curious... the tenor of our brief chat would fit most anybody's definition of "civil," and she was gracious about coming back for a photo after she'd started advancing toward the next restaurant patrons in line.