Jimmy Carter famously said our “inordinate fear of Communism” had led us to wrongly support unsavory dictators only because they were anti-Communists. Operating under this theory, he let the ayatollahs seize control of Iran (his administration claimed Khomeini would be “remembered as a saint”). Carter later took a leading role in the naively trusting 1995 Agreed Framework that allowed N Korea to continue building nuclear weapons while receiving foreign aid, thus propping one of up the world’s last and worst Communist states.
It seems almost poetic, then, that Carter’s intellectual descendants will now watch (passively, have no doubt) as Iran acquires nuclear weapons while spitting in their faces in response to Obama’s diplomatic overtures — a source of considerable distress for a certain small liberal democracy the mullahs have threatened to wipe off the map.
For Mr Netanyahu, neither a Syrian nor a Palestinian peace deal is as urgent as curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
…
“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Mr Netanyahu was quoted as saying.
You wouldn’t think anyone would need to point that out. To me, the oddest part of all this is that the same people that who are horrified by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are strangely complacent about nuclear weapons in the hands of megalomaniacal anti-American theocrats who believe their holy duty includes brutally executing homosexuals by throwing big rocks at them till their bodies are crushed and broken. But that’s probably just my inordinate fear of stoning talking.
Even some of those foreigners about whose adulation of Obama we’re always hearing seem to have doubts. Via Hot Air, harsh words from across the pond for “President Pantywaist”
Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.
Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you – as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)
Speaking of Barack’s public speaking, remember all those promises to end Bush’s Dark Night Of Repression? Well, it turns out words don’t have to mean anything:
“Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ’s radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama’s own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws. This isn’t change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.”
Bah, they just have an inordinate fear of government surveillance.
Surrender abroad, repression at home. Ironically, by trusting in his shallow rhetoric the moderate Obama supporters have managed to elect a man who is combining some of their least favorite qualities in Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
UPDATE: At last, our inordinate fear of pirates is at an end!
For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.
The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
{ 23 comments }
Our inordinate fear of confronting the Saudis who were responsible for 9/11 and al Qaeda in Iraq’s wartime atrocities, combined with our inordinate fear of confronting Russia directly is what prevents us from taking reasonable action against Iran.
Democrats and Republicans have been mindlessly follow the Carter/Brzezinski ‘headless chicken’ plan of using an alliance with Islamists as weapons in our war against China and Russia. Even after 9/11, we refuse to acknowledge that our Islamist allies in Saudi Arabia have murdered more American citizens and have caused us more economic damage than Russia or China ever did.
If we wage war against Iran, the Saudis and other enemies will be the primary beneficiaries. If we bribe Iran, all of our enemies will be empowered. If we do nothing, Iran will continue to threaten the west and Israel with the possibility of nukes. Our fearful reaction, combined with a ‘paper tiger’ unwillingness to take action, will empower our enemies, encouraging more hostile nations to make nuke threats.
The only reasonable course of action would be to at least acknowledge that alliances change, that our alliance with Saudi Arabia should end, and that the Saudis who are responsible for the spread of worldwide terrorism should be prosecuted. We should talk to Russia and China directly, without Islamist intermediaries. And we should stop freaking out when little dictators and pirates in rowboats make big threats. If we stopped being so soft-hearted, their puny weapons really would be no match for our superior intellect.
But inordinate fears keep us from doing that.
Well I figured I’d help this article because it is missing some key news articles that might help with the outcome or conclusion.
First, it appears that people in Iran favored talks and now there’s a public declaration of having said talks.
Medvedev’s Letter in the Washington Post indicates a willingness to co-operate on nuclear proliferation.
In Obama’s letters to Medvedev he indicated that if Iran did not have a nuclear program, then it would not be necessary to build a missile system in Eastern Europe. I am guessing Medvedev’s sudden polite declaration of willingness to co-operate could be based heavily on Iran’s program. But perhaps not until we see action one can only speculate.
There was a lot of protests against the PATRIOT act initially. However, conservatives shot it down saying it was good for the country. This is a broken promise and there is no good reason for it, unless he now has access to intelligence reports that he didn’t have access to during the campaign. In that case then, he may have made a poor decision based on actual grounds.
Hope the more recent articles help as I would like to see if they might help your conclusion.
OFFS “click to edit” is awesome
Here’s the Iran piece again.
I fixed it for ya, JRogge.
Hey, do we have any source other than Gerald Warner for the claim that American ships could have shot Kim’s missile down but did not?
First, it appears that people in Iran favored talks and now there’s a public declaration of having said talks.
Oh goody, the people are in favor of having their unelected leadership hold talks. And a promise of help from the Russians! It’s nice they aren’t holding a grudge after invading Georgia. I’m sure both of these developments will turn out to be equally productive.
My favorite part is this:
Gee, I wonder why it hasn’t happened then. It’s almost like the voters’ wishes don’t matter, or something.
Well, for their part I’m sure the ayatollahs are looking forward to their chance at being bribed to unverifiably stop making nuclear weapons while simultaneously insulting us in various amusing ways and sending more military aid to terrorists. And when the first nuke is tested, then things really get fun!
Probably not a good time to buy real estate in Israel.
Dean, several countries have that capability.
So what is your alternative to talks with Iran? Seriously, what would you have us do? Please tell us the solution. Talks are obviously a silly idea, so what is the right course of action? I see plenty of criticism about how things are going, but no offer of an idea of how to actually handle the situation.
Also, why do you think Russia invaded Georgia? Do you think perhaps it was because people were trying to build little NATO satellites around them and they didn’t appreciate it? Do you think also it might have had something to do with South Ossetia being recognized as a sovereign nation by Russia and the fact that Georgia viciously attacked it?
I am guessing not.
Also, why do you think Russia invaded Georgia?
Like most aggressors, they attacked because they assumed that they could get away with it.
So when Iraq attacked Kuwait and we came in we were aggressors?
… Barack Obama is weaker than 4 guys in a lifeboat.
That’s really pathetic.
So when Iraq attacked Kuwait and we came in we were aggressors?
That depends on one’s point of view. If a person tends to support a leftist/socialist agenda, then we would be seen as the aggressors in both cases. If a person tends to support a right-wing/capitalist agenda, the Russians and Saddam were the aggressors.
If a person doesn’t totally support the right or the left, both sides were aggressors, and both are using small-scale conflicts to fight larger cold war/great game battles.
In Obama’s letters to Medvedev he indicated that if Iran did not have a nuclear program, then it would not be necessary to build a missile system in Eastern Europe.
If this works, then it’s an example of good diplomacy, and a reasonable way of dealing directly with the Russians.
However, we really shouldn’t talk with Iran’s leadership, because that will empower and legitimize a malign, contemptible regime. It’s obvious that we’re talking with them because they’ve been threatening us. This will encourage other malign, contemptible regimes, like the Syrians, to start their own ‘nuclear energy’ programs.
Syria and Iran can’t build these nuke threats without Russian (and Pakistani) help. Russia and Pakistan have an endless source of weak, tinpot regimes who want to use nukes to blackmail America. It would be more effective to deal with the source of the nuke-threat problem, Russia and Pakistan.
It would be more effective to deal with the source of the nuke-threat problem, Russia and Pakistan.
oops – that should be ‘it would be more effective for us to deal with the source of the nuke-threat problem, Russia and Pakistan’
So what is your alternative to talks with Iran?
Not having talks with Iran. You know, instead of giving them the patina of legitimacy and a chance to screw us. Given that Iran is going to have nuclear weapons either way, it makes little sense to bribe them and humiliate ourselves, especially since we already tried that in N Korea. And we should green-light Israel to do whatever it feels is necessary; it worked pretty well both in Iraq and more recently in Syria.
Also, why do you think Russia invaded Georgia?
To control it, of course.
Do you think perhaps it was because people were trying to build little NATO satellites around them and they didn’t appreciate it?
So your argument is the people in the countries around Russia don’t have the right to choose to join NATO? Interesting. I guess the Soviet Union really does live on in leftists’ hearts.
Seriously, this is very badly flawed thinking. What legitimate fear can Russia have of NATO? None at all. Their resentment is either irrational or based on very immoral grounds. Encouraging that sort of thinking on their part is very very bad policy.
Considering that the OSCE Monitor attests to the fact that Georgia shelled South Ossetia first it would seem your facts are missing a few details. If Russia was bent on conquest of Georgia they would have done it. South Ossetia wishes to succeed from Georgia and has in fact accused Georgia of genocide. The Russians had a peacekeeping force in there and Georgia shelled South Ossetia starting the conflict.
Sorry Russia did what they had to do. They did it in a poor way perhaps. But they did what they had to do. In any case you would have us at war with every country. What is “not talking” to Iran going to do? Is it going to force their nuclear program to shut down? I doubt it. I especially doubt it if we have Russia as an enemy as well, dumping money into their hands. Sorry we gotta work with another “superpower” on this.
Seriously, this is very badly flawed thinking. What legitimate fear can Russia have of NATO?
You’re right what fear could they possibly have of NATO? They’ve never declared as such. However, this does not address the fact that Georgia started the conflict.
Pakistan will be a threat if it is taken over by the Taliban. Is ignoring diplomatic relations and co-operation with Russia going to help that situation? You seem to be suggesting that we throw diplomacy out the window completely. Doing that is the reason we are in this mess.
How does talking with Iran “empower” them? Talking does not necessitate a bribe. “Talking” could very well be nothing of the sort. “Not talking” with Iran empowers them because they can cry “oppression” and get other countries there to sympathize with them, making it almost impossible for the new democracy we worked so hard to set up to survive.
Diplomacy is a very important part of all this. Do you think Iran will disable it’s nuclear program if it sees us as a threat? It certainly knows it’s army can’t stop ours. How does it get an offensive edge? The person that is terrified is more likely to shoot a weapon irresponsibly than the person who is not.
How does talking with Iran “empower” them? Talking does not necessitate a bribe. “Talking” could very well be nothing of the sort. “Not talking” with Iran empowers them because they can cry “oppression” and get other countries there to sympathize with them, making it almost impossible for the new democracy we worked so hard to set up to survive.
So, what kind of conversation do you envision taking place between Obama and Ahmadinejad? Do you imagine that they’ll converse like two CEO’s, shake hands, share a few laughs, reach an understanding?
They’re not equals. Ahmadinejad is a war criminal, employed by a theocratic mafia organization. He has no political skills, he has no skills at all. If he came to America, Ahmadinejad couldn’t get a job sweeping floors. Everyone on the planet knows that Iran is trying to shake us down.
If your tin-foil hatted truther neighbor was threatening to kill most of the people who lived in your town, and if he was also threatening the president’s life, would you think that your neighbor was a legitimate political entity?
If Obama invited your tinfoil-hatted neighbor and his wife to the White House, served him a fine dinner and shook hands with him on CNN, would you then have some respect for your neighbor, and his truther opinions?
So, what kind of conversation do you envision taking place between Obama and Ahmadinejad? Do you imagine that they’ll converse like two CEO’s, shake hands, share a few laughs, reach an understanding?
Nope not at all. However, not talking with them solves absolutely nothing. In the effect of the tin-foil hatted neighbor, generally the authorities would detain him and bring him in for, most likely, psychiatric treatment. Since Ahmadinejad is the ruler of a nation, there is no authority to bring him in for psychiatric treatment. Thus he has to be dealt with diplomatically at some fashion. Not talking with him, and not cooperating with others to put pressure on him to abandon his facility, will result in him not abandoning his facility.
Let’s take another look at the tin-foil hatted neighbor. Assuming nobody did anything and let him carry on without trying to talk him down etc, he would probably be more likely to carry out his plans. Obama bringing him in for a talk first at least carries with it an attempt to reconcile with no one getting harmed in the process. Failing that, drastic measures can be carried out with the notion that every humane opportunity for the tin-foil hatted neighbor to abandon his crazy plans had failed leaving us no choice.
In real life, considering that Iraq wants us out in 2011, Pakistan is all but lost, and Afghanistan is mainly taken back over by the Taliban, there is no real foothold America has to make any real threat that it can back up against Iran. It is only by diplomatically working with other countries, including “evil” Russia, that any pressure can be applied to the man to step down. Talks empower us, not the other way around.
In real life, considering that Iraq wants us out in 2011, Pakistan is all but lost, and Afghanistan is mainly taken back over by the Taliban, there is no real foothold America has to make any real threat that it can back up against Iran.
We don’t need to threaten Iran, because their leadership is, intellectually and militarily, insignificant. We just need to threaten/and or ‘talk’ with Russia and Pakistan. Russia can then deal with Iran.
Pakistan has always been, and probably always will be, lost.
It is only by diplomatically working with other countries, including “evil” Russia, that any pressure can be applied to the man to step down
I never said that Russia is evil, and we should be talking to them at all times. Sometimes we should be threatening them, sometimes not. Despite the fact that their governments are, literally and figuratively, poisonous and destructive, Russia and China are worth talking to.
But Iran’s government is not. They’re the national equivalent of the dangerous, tinfoil hatted local lunatic. Yes, they have some weapons, and they’re strategically located in a place that guarantees that someone has to pay some attention to them, but they don’t deserve any time or respect from respectable politicians.
In the effect of the tin-foil hatted neighbor, generally the authorities would detain him and bring him in for, most likely, psychiatric treatment.
But President doesn’t have to have tea with him. This situation isn’t even worth the attention of the mayor. If this loon gets special treatment, it’s going to encourage all the other loons waiting in the wings – and it will give legitimacy to his threats.
But President doesn’t have to have tea with him. This situation isn’t even worth the attention of the mayor. If this loon gets special treatment, it’s going to encourage all the other loons waiting in the wings – and it will give legitimacy to his threats.
His threats are possibly quite legitimate. I do agree with the fact that Russia primarily needs to deal with this. But in order to get them to go along we probably need to participate in some sort of diplomatic solution. This is really about keeping up appearances more than anything. Talks with Iran legitimize us. It legitimizes the claim that we are willing to respect and work with Muslim nations with a legitimate aim for peace. Honestly, I do not think that talks would result in anything, although there is always the possibility.
Look if you do not think the threats Iran makes are legitimate then I can see your position. I on the other hand am in the camp that his threats are completely legitimate. Then again why should I care? It’s only millions of innocent people in Israel right?
Why do you constantly use the tea analogy? What is it about talking that makes certain people think it’s tea and biscuits and sunny times. Talking can also be about the future of a pathetic little dictatorship that will find out what happens when countries play the nuclear game that shouldn’t. All sorts of talking, but none of it happy. It is still non-violent, peaceful, and civilized however.
Why is it that we constantly have to take a position that is no better than an ape pounding their chest on these matters? Even our forefathers had a meeting with the Barbary pirates before they were crushed. Talks can be as simple as giving warning before you strike. Do you really think that the U.S., Russia, and China (nix them most likely as they would probably not care at all about any of this) will have any sweat on their brow during this conversation?
We need to give him his “out” if you will. Iran is not an OPEC nation and it doesn’t have much leverage in this negotiation. This is an act of charity, nothing more. If they are too unreasonable to accept such charity, then whatever plans of retaliation for not meeting demands to stand down on the nuclear plants will take effect and they will not be able to do much about it.
However, not talking to them merely continues the barbaric concept of foreign policy that has tarnished our reputations as peacekeepers which frankly is all we have left. In any case talks do not give Iran the advantage. If talks did so then their leadership would welcome them. Since this is not the case then I doubt they have all the advantages you claim.
jrogge:
I think Mary and Dave have been quite clear on why the US shouldn’t speak directly to Iran. As the leader of the free world, when the US directly engages any regime, it legitimizes that regime, thereby legitimizing its behavior. We have no choice with N Korea as we already recognize them as legitimate, even if repugnant. But Iran is a different story; we have never recognized them as legitimate. By speaking directly with them, we are tacitly reversing that policy.
Further, to assume that we haven’t communicated with them is false. The US has been holding low-level communications through trusted allies for years. The Bush administration freely offered to speak with them at the Secretary of State level if they would simply comply with the U. N. resolutions that required them to stop enriching uranium until such time as their program could be adequately vetted. They refused this offer. They refused because they recognized at the time that the world probably couldn’t afford $200 per barrel oil brought about by a US blockade or air strikes.
I strongly suspect that talking to them will do just as Dave and Mary have elaborated. It will legitimize the theocratic, totalitarian and terrorist regime while they press on with their program and thumb their noses, making a mockery of US diplomacy. I’m actually quite fine with that; they won’t be mocking anyone I voted for. And when the sh*t does hit the fan, it will be Obama to blame; this failure, like Carter’s before, will expose the left leaning notion that we can talk nicely and thugs will comply as a folly.
And it will hit the fan; Israel has already demonstrated that they won’t tolerate it. If such a conflict goes nuclear or WMD, it won’t be just a few million Israelis; it’s likely going to involve the broader ME and South Asia, and therefore the other relevant powers: US, Europe, India, Russia and China. Hundreds of millions could die and the ME oil supply could be made unrecoverable for years to come. Which of those possibilities are you comfortable with?
They have been quite clear, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Look, it is obvious that Iran will never bother to consider any demands placed on them. Talking with Iran is a political move and nothing more. It solidifies our claim to making an attempt at creating peace. How does talking with them legitimize their rhetoric? Does it legitimize their rhetoric that we are a nation at war with Islam? No. Does it legitimize their claims that they will destroy Israel? No. Does it make them seem more powerful than they really are? No.
However, people will say it legitimizes Iran because they think it strengthens their argument for not having talks. The only thing talks indicate is that we respect the people of Iran enough to talk with them just as we would any other country. Showing respect enough to talk to foreign leaders does not in any way legitimize their claims, it does not guarantee Iran will receive a bribe, and it does not guarantee we will be nice.
It does show that people who willingly choose to negotiate with the US are free to do so and that we are not the tyrants we are made out to be. Also, for what reasons is diplomacy a bad place to start? What is the alternative. The main argument here is that we don’t talk to Iran. What does not talking to them solve? Not invade, not blockade, or anything else. It’s just to not talk to them. Isn’t that a fairly weak way of doing things? The argument being placed here is to essentially ignore the situation. as if that would end up in better circumstances. That is fairly weak logic. Ignoring the situation results in the same “nuclear holocaust” as Bush put it but with one exception, we didn’t make any attempt to do anything.
Not talking to someone as opposed to talking with them is not an alternative, it is doing nothing. Then again that is the ideology I am dealing with in this discussion apparently. “Who cares if they blow each other up? As long as they leave us out of it.” I have news for you, your plan isn’t a plan at all but a no-plan.
BTW talks kept the region in check last I remember. Since we adopted the ignorant policy of declaring people enemies in the Middle East, Hamas took over Palestine, Israel was attacked by Lebanon, and now they are at war with Palestine and the situation will probably escalate. that sounds to me like our involvement in the Middle East has done nothing but strengthen their rhetoric and the war in Iraq has only bolstered the cause. So, if you are proposing that we abandon the Middle East, abandon Israel, and tell the whole region to “snuff it” as it were, then you might be on to something.
However, considering our level of involvement there we need to have talks with any nation that chooses to have them. Because this elitism and frankly colonialist attitude of foreign policy that you are somehow advocating actually strengthens their rhetoric more than having talks will ever do.
The only thing talks indicate is that we respect the people of Iran enough to talk with them just as we would any other country
If we want to show respect to the people of Iran, we should talk to the people of Iran, the majority of whom do not support the current regime. If Obama wants to show respect to Iran, he should speak to the many dissidents there.
In Iran, he should also demand to speak to Roxana Saberi:
In 2003, an Iranian-born Canadian photojournalist named Zahra Kazemi was arrested in Tehran, jailed in its notorious Evin prison and charged with espionage. Less than three weeks later, Kazemi was dead. An Iranian doctor who examined her before her death later reported that she had been raped, sustained a skull fracture and had her fingernails ripped out.
Now another foreign journalist is imprisoned at Evin and also charged with espionage. In late January, Roxana Saberi, a U.S.-born reporter of Iranian descent who had been living in Iran for several years, was arrested for buying a bottle of wine. In early March, she was accused of “illegal activities,” including working without press credentials. She was later indicted for espionage and on Monday her case went to trial, which lasted a day; a verdict is expected within weeks.
Showing respect to the Mullah-thugocracy is not the same thing as showing respect to Iran.
If we want to show respect to the people of Iran, we should talk to the people of Iran, the majority of whom do not support the current regime. If Obama wants to show respect to Iran, he should speak to the many dissidents there.
He did but he was criticized for it. making a public statement on their media channels is about as “address the people” as you can get without overstepping your bounds as a political leader. He praised the people of Iran, and condemned the Iranian government as not acting in ways that are conductive to peace. So he has and this is consistent with the aim of showing respect for the Iranian people.
I don’t understand how people can ignore these things. Especially when they’ve been all over the news.
As far as Roxana Saberi goes she isn’t the first Iranian-American to be arrested in the last few years in Iran for being “subversive”. I don’t remember Bush mentioning those people in his statements either. Besides it is likely that her expeditious release would be stymied by an expression of outrage on the state’s behalf. Then the hardline government which stands to lose a lot if the people no longer have faith in it will refuse to release her to keep from appearing submissive to U.S. pressure. It is a sad and delicate situation. The best way for her to stay in prison for a long time at this juncture is to demand her release.
In any case “not having talks” does not solve that issue any better at any rate.
Then the hardline government which stands to lose a lot if the people no longer have faith in it..
Very few people have ‘faith’ in the Iranian kleptocracy. Saddam Hussein won 99% of the votes in the last ‘election’ he ran in. Dictators like the Iranian mullahs rule by employing a large part of the population as spies, to keep the rest of the people in line.
That’s why the best way to target these kinds of autocracies is to target their intelligence agencies. If diplomacy would provide information that we could use against these agencies, I’d think it would be a good idea. But the Russians are more likely to provide (or just use) that kind of information.
The only thing diplomacy with the current leadership will accomplish is to make us look clueless.
Oh, and I did hear about Obama’s appeal to the Iranian people. It seemed like a good idea to me, publicity wise.
Comments on this entry are closed.