Obama Reaping the Rewards of Weakness Toward Iran
On March 20th, Obama gave a major address to the people of Iran. Courtesy of the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wirantext0320/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview):
I. Obama's Speech
After some feel-good BS about the Iranian holiday of Nowruz and Iran being a "great civilization" (which Persia was before the Muslim conquest, and Iran was starting to be again before the Islamic Republic), Obama said (emphasis mine):
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
"Not be advanced by threats" could mean two things. It could mean that Obama is saying that he won't be moved by threats -- or it could mean that he is saying that he won't make any threats.
In the first case, this would be sternly defiant. In the second case it would be giving away one of his most powerful advantages -- that he is the President of the United States of America rather than of Weakistan -- before even beginning any negotiations.
"Mutual respect" is meaningless. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not respect any Power which is not either (1) Shi'ite Muslim and of the exact same Shi'ite Muslim faction as themselves (thus, nobody) or (2) ready, willing and able to kick Iran's ass with contemptuous ease (Russia). Obama is ignoring the reality of Iran and trying to put a fantasy-Iran in its place, because the fantasy-Iran looks prettier.
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
Now, Obama is setting conditions on Iran if Iran wants "to take its rightful place in the community of nations." He is saying that it comes with "real responsibilities" (what?) and that it "... cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions ..."
Ok, fine. What's missing here? Obama did not give the Iranians any reason to believe or submit to the conditions that he laid out here. He merely asserts, in defiance of observable reality that "terror or arms" will be useless to Iran's ends. I say "in defiance of observable reality," because in fact the Iranians have been growing in power and international status precisely because of "terror" and "arms."
Obama's statement might make sense of followed by an explanation of consequences to Iran should Iran fail to follow the path that he has offered. But there are, apparently, no consequences, other than Obama's disapproval.
Well, who the heck cares about Obama's disapproval? Acting as Commander-in-Chief, with the "disapproval" coming in the form of Stealth bombers taking apart Iran's air defense system, and missile salvoes destroying in hours the fruits of years of Iranian toil, Iranians perishing under bombing runs that they lack the technology to intercept, such "disapproval" would be meaningful. Acting as Nanny-in-Chief, lecturing Iran on what Iran should belive and should do, this disapproval is meaningless.
So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
Even rationally, the Iranians might prefer the future in which they terrify the West to withdraw from the Gulf and proceed to dominate the global oil supply through force of arms. If successful, this gives them a lot of wealth, along with Great Power status.
When you add the element of religious fanaticism into the equation, it's no contest.
II. Khamenei's Response
For those who may be unaware of the somewhat unusual governing system of Iran, ultimate power rests in the hand of the "Supreme Leader," who is currently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Supreme Leader has the right to veto the election of any other official, including the President and the members of the legislature. Thus, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad serves at Khamenei's pleasure.
Supreme Leader Khamenei quickly let Obama know just what he thought of his offer. Interestingly, I could not find a direct transcript of Khamenei's statement, just snippets, reprinted in MSM articles which were quick to assure us that the seeming harshness of the reply was merely a negotiating ploy, or a reaction to earlier American foreign policy. As always, the MSM is uncomfortable with letting non-Westereners speak for themselves -- because they might reveal opinions that they aren't supposed to have in the MSM worldview.
I'm going by the AP article as the most basic (though I would appreciate if someone could point me to a direct transcript of Khamenei's statement).
(Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_obama).
In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.
"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
This is actually a fair criticism of Obama in general: he is long on rhetoric, and short on action. Of course the only "action" that would please Khamenei would be some sort of abject American surrender, so it's probably for the better that Obama isn't really "acting" on this.
In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community "cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
By now, everyone but the willfuly blind are aware that Iran supports terrorism and is seeking nuclear weapons. In fact, even a lot of liberals will admit that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons -- they'll just explain it away as Iran fearing a US invasion.
And there is no way that America could seek any meaningful rapprochement with Iran unless Iran agreed to give up her support for terrorism and attempt to build nuclear weapons.
Khamenei is well aware of this, as he is certainly aware of the support for terrorism and attempts to build nuclear weapons that he himself has ordered. What Khamenei is essentially doing is saying to America: "Ok. You want peace? You can have peace if you agree to sign on to our lie that we aren't supporting terrorism or trying to build nuclear weapons."
But of course, that sort of "peace" would be worthless, and meaningless.
"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."
Maybe if we whine and back off, Iran will limit its murderous attacks to Iraq and Israel, rather than going after America as well?
"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.
So, if we release Iranian assets (lots of luck getting them in our hands again if the Iranians renege on the deal), lift the sanctions, stop telling the truth about Iran, and abandon our long-time ally Israel, Iran will think about changing its behavior.
How much do you -- or, more importantly, does OBAMA imagine that promise is worth?
Conclusion
Foreign policy hawks have long warned that trying to be friendly toward Iran would only embolden the Iranians to make more demands. Obama, being a Wise Liberal, ignored these silly conservative fears and extended a hand of friendship toward Iran.
And had it slapped. Obama -- and America -- has lost face in front of the world. And nothing has been gained.
But don't worry. I'm sure that Obama will have some new Brilliant New Idea in foreign policy any day now.
Obama has a lot of Brilliant New Ideas.
Just as did Jimmy Carter.
Fools, the pair of them.
END.
I. Obama's Speech
After some feel-good BS about the Iranian holiday of Nowruz and Iran being a "great civilization" (which Persia was before the Muslim conquest, and Iran was starting to be again before the Islamic Republic), Obama said (emphasis mine):
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
"Not be advanced by threats" could mean two things. It could mean that Obama is saying that he won't be moved by threats -- or it could mean that he is saying that he won't make any threats.
In the first case, this would be sternly defiant. In the second case it would be giving away one of his most powerful advantages -- that he is the President of the United States of America rather than of Weakistan -- before even beginning any negotiations.
"Mutual respect" is meaningless. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not respect any Power which is not either (1) Shi'ite Muslim and of the exact same Shi'ite Muslim faction as themselves (thus, nobody) or (2) ready, willing and able to kick Iran's ass with contemptuous ease (Russia). Obama is ignoring the reality of Iran and trying to put a fantasy-Iran in its place, because the fantasy-Iran looks prettier.
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
Now, Obama is setting conditions on Iran if Iran wants "to take its rightful place in the community of nations." He is saying that it comes with "real responsibilities" (what?) and that it "... cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions ..."
Ok, fine. What's missing here? Obama did not give the Iranians any reason to believe or submit to the conditions that he laid out here. He merely asserts, in defiance of observable reality that "terror or arms" will be useless to Iran's ends. I say "in defiance of observable reality," because in fact the Iranians have been growing in power and international status precisely because of "terror" and "arms."
Obama's statement might make sense of followed by an explanation of consequences to Iran should Iran fail to follow the path that he has offered. But there are, apparently, no consequences, other than Obama's disapproval.
Well, who the heck cares about Obama's disapproval? Acting as Commander-in-Chief, with the "disapproval" coming in the form of Stealth bombers taking apart Iran's air defense system, and missile salvoes destroying in hours the fruits of years of Iranian toil, Iranians perishing under bombing runs that they lack the technology to intercept, such "disapproval" would be meaningful. Acting as Nanny-in-Chief, lecturing Iran on what Iran should belive and should do, this disapproval is meaningless.
So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
Even rationally, the Iranians might prefer the future in which they terrify the West to withdraw from the Gulf and proceed to dominate the global oil supply through force of arms. If successful, this gives them a lot of wealth, along with Great Power status.
When you add the element of religious fanaticism into the equation, it's no contest.
II. Khamenei's Response
For those who may be unaware of the somewhat unusual governing system of Iran, ultimate power rests in the hand of the "Supreme Leader," who is currently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Supreme Leader has the right to veto the election of any other official, including the President and the members of the legislature. Thus, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad serves at Khamenei's pleasure.
Supreme Leader Khamenei quickly let Obama know just what he thought of his offer. Interestingly, I could not find a direct transcript of Khamenei's statement, just snippets, reprinted in MSM articles which were quick to assure us that the seeming harshness of the reply was merely a negotiating ploy, or a reaction to earlier American foreign policy. As always, the MSM is uncomfortable with letting non-Westereners speak for themselves -- because they might reveal opinions that they aren't supposed to have in the MSM worldview.
I'm going by the AP article as the most basic (though I would appreciate if someone could point me to a direct transcript of Khamenei's statement).
(Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_obama).
In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.
"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
This is actually a fair criticism of Obama in general: he is long on rhetoric, and short on action. Of course the only "action" that would please Khamenei would be some sort of abject American surrender, so it's probably for the better that Obama isn't really "acting" on this.
In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community "cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
By now, everyone but the willfuly blind are aware that Iran supports terrorism and is seeking nuclear weapons. In fact, even a lot of liberals will admit that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons -- they'll just explain it away as Iran fearing a US invasion.
And there is no way that America could seek any meaningful rapprochement with Iran unless Iran agreed to give up her support for terrorism and attempt to build nuclear weapons.
Khamenei is well aware of this, as he is certainly aware of the support for terrorism and attempts to build nuclear weapons that he himself has ordered. What Khamenei is essentially doing is saying to America: "Ok. You want peace? You can have peace if you agree to sign on to our lie that we aren't supporting terrorism or trying to build nuclear weapons."
But of course, that sort of "peace" would be worthless, and meaningless.
"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."
Maybe if we whine and back off, Iran will limit its murderous attacks to Iraq and Israel, rather than going after America as well?
"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.
So, if we release Iranian assets (lots of luck getting them in our hands again if the Iranians renege on the deal), lift the sanctions, stop telling the truth about Iran, and abandon our long-time ally Israel, Iran will think about changing its behavior.
How much do you -- or, more importantly, does OBAMA imagine that promise is worth?
Conclusion
Foreign policy hawks have long warned that trying to be friendly toward Iran would only embolden the Iranians to make more demands. Obama, being a Wise Liberal, ignored these silly conservative fears and extended a hand of friendship toward Iran.
And had it slapped. Obama -- and America -- has lost face in front of the world. And nothing has been gained.
But don't worry. I'm sure that Obama will have some new Brilliant New Idea in foreign policy any day now.
Obama has a lot of Brilliant New Ideas.
Just as did Jimmy Carter.
Fools, the pair of them.
END.