Ah… the media was a’flurry with reports that the Eunuch in Chief was actually about to take a definitive stand INRE the freedom fighters in the streets of Iran. Little did they know that the only ones he *was* getting tough on were his critics… like me… calling him a wuss.
I watched and listened to the press conference. The deadpan POTUS – sans his favorite sidekick, TOTUS – delivered the following prepared statement from his cue cards.
I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future.
Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they — and only they — will choose.The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.
Oh my… where to start? Naturally there is the token “me and my Cairo speech” plug. But where is this man’s perspective?
What we have been witnessing is not a “debate”, and to label it such is embarrassingly naive… if not borderline criminal. And to “condemn” and call it “unjust”, while stressing that the Iranian people must “respect” their government is equally absurd. Eloquent mutterings of oxymorons may look good on paper, but they are the hallmark of Obama’s leadership weakness.
The youth of Iran have not respected their government for quite some time. And despite Obama’s pie-in-the-sky assurance that the Iranian regime “still has time” to follow that path to brotherly love with the citizens and international acceptance, these events cannot be erased by johnny-come-lately feigned appeasement by the Ayatollah’s extension for voting complaints.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accepted a request by Iran’s top legislative body to extend the deadline by five days for receiving and looking into election complaints, state television said on Tuesday.
The Guardian Council, which investigates complaints submitted by defeated candidates about the disputed June 12 election, earlier made the request in a letter to Khamenei. The initial deadline was set for June 24.
“The Supreme Leader accepted the request by the secretary of the Guardian Council to extend by five days (the deadline) for following up complaints by candidates,” state television said.
The Guardian Council, which must approve the results of the election, has said it is ready to recount a random 10 percent of the votes but has ruled out cancelling the election, as demanded by two moderate candidates.
Under no circumstances would this “extension” – a showcase at best to emulate fairness” – have occurred had it not been for the strong statements of the international community… not withstanding the US eunuch in chief’s wishy washy commentary. Obama deserves no credit whatsoever for this stage play the Ayatollah now puts on.
Instead in response to Major Garrett’s question, “what took so long?”, Obama recants and goes right back to the US as a “foil” argument that he used in a Friday CBS interview…
“The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States,” Obama said in an interview broadcast Monday on CBS’ “The Early Show.”
“We shouldn’t be playing into that,” he said in the interview, which was recorded Friday.
He told Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, in an interview published Sunday, that the United States has no way of knowing whether the disputed Iranian election 10 days ago was fair or not. Iranians should be able to peacefully protest the results in any case, Obama said.
Today’s version remains the same ol’, same ol’. Phrased as:
As soon as violence broke out — in fact, in anticipation of potential violence — we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.
So we’ve been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we’ve approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what’s happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House, that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people.
And so we’ve been very consistent the first day, and we’re going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States, this is about an issue of the Iranian people.
Frankly that “foil” argument is adeptly “foiled” since… even with Obama’s wishy washy comments… the violence, mayhem, arrests in the dead of night, shut down of communications to the outside world and abuse of citizens happens, and continues. Despite Obama’s castrated leadership, [correction] Ahmadinejad the Ayatollah himself still blames US interference, while Ahmadinejad – likely of the same mentality – remains unusually low key at the recommendation of his peers.
As a matter of fact, the media is filled with instances where Iran “blames” the US for virtually everything.
Iran blames U.S. for bitter post-election dispute Iran’s Ahmadinejad Blames the US for Global Financial Crisis
Ahmadinejad blames US policies for global insecurities
Ahmadinejad blames US military meddling for market collapse
Ahmadinejad blames US, Israel for shrine attack
Ahmadinejad blames US militarism for Wall St crisis
Ahmadinejad blames US and Israel for int’l problems
This would be the same Iranian leadership who responded to Obama’s March overture of a “new beginning” with a “you change, our behavior will change”.
Were that not enough, the also took aim at the UN with their blame game as well. And not to play favorites, they’ve also pointed their fingers at Germany and the UK.
Obviously, Iran hasn’t got that “hope’y change” bit down to a tee yet.
To continue the “US as a foil” argument as fact, instead of a parallel universe fiction, requires the “willing suspension of disbelief” PLUS an inherent faith that the Easter Bunny truly exists. The point is, whether the US stands firm publicly for American values… or not… Iran has, and will always, use America as a “foil”.
If what is happening now is not a “bloodbath”, just what should we call it? As Curt posts, is it that Obama requires even heavier artillery than sniper weaponry and batons used on their unarmed demonstrators before he believes this to be dire?
INRE Obama’s preposterous notions about the election being “fair”? From what planet does this man hail? What horse manure. He again demonstrates his fence straddling balance act – aka “voting present” in his non-response to a zinger of a question from Huffpo’s Nico Pitney. Pitney’s question was solicited from one of the Iranian protesters direct, and asked to the eunuch in chief by Pitney on their behalf.
Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards.
Below, Obama’s long winded response that never once touches the “betrayal” segment of the question.
Obama doesn’t pronounce the election results as fair or not, and notes there were no int’l observers. While this is a fair enough diplomatic response, what is most revealing about Obama’s comments on the election itself is that he says that election doesn’t need to appear “legitimate” to the eyes of the world, but only to the Iranian’s themselves. Uh… since when?
Ultimately, the most important thing for the Irani government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of it’s own people… not in the eyes of the United States and that’s why I have been very clear ultimately this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.
Look around, Obama. The Iranians are on record, with their blood and very lives, stating in no uncertain terms that this election is not legitimate. They are being murdered, beaten, arrested and assaulted while questioning the “legitimate” structure of their government.
In direct juxtaposition to Obama’s paraphrased opinion that the US’s opinion of the election results as legitimate don’t matter, is the opinion of the Iranian demonstrators themselves.
And just one additional thing, and this is very interesting. A number of students came up to me today, and said that they want to appeal to President Obama. They said is he going to accept this result, because if he does… then we are doomed. So I’ve heard alot about … a lot about appeals to Obama and the international community today from the University students.
Perhaps the American Appeaser in Chief can’t hear their pleas from the ice cream stand. Maybe the US media reports of the US demonstrations, and others around the world, don’t reach the WH cable service. And most certainly, his advisers are impressing upon him to never be as bold in support of American values as his predecessor lest he suffer the same fate of unpopularity…. an event we already see this President cannot handle.
Instead, the liberal journalist hack, Robin Wright, reverently touts Obama’s Cairo speech as an icon of impressive diplomacy, likening the Iranian plight to Obama’s “Berlin Wall moment” and a “diplomatic dream”, … and in the next breath admitting that this admin, and none before it can take credit for the uprising of the Iranian youth.
Who would have thought that a Berlin Wall moment for the region might happen in the strict Islamic republic, where a revolution 30 years ago unleashed Islam as a modern political idiom and extremism as a tool to confront the West?
Unlikely as it seems, the rise of a popular movement relying on civil disobedience to confront authoritarian rule – in the last bloc of countries to hold out against the tide of change that has swept the rest of the world over the past quarter century – is almost a diplomatic dream for the Obama Administration.
I’m not talking about the regime’s obstinate reaction or the brutality it unleashed on the streets of Tehran this past weekend. Even in his terse comments since the beginning of the electoral chaos in Iran, Barack Obama has made it clear the violence upsets him greatly. But in his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, Obama spoke about the same principles that just eight days later galvanized millions of people throughout Iran to take to the streets.
“All people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” Obama said. (Read “Dennis Ross, Iran Adviser, Moves to White House.”)
With what now looks like uncanny prescience, he added, “There is no straight line to realize this promise … Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.”
Uncanny prescience? Bush, and anyone in the country with a modicum of observation skills have seen that Iran’s youth have been ripe for internal rebellion for years. Wright, instead, throws undeserved bones to Obama, setting him up for taking credit where none is due. This is, bar none, as absurd as Obama taking credit for troop withdrawal from Iraq – which was decided by the Bush admin and Iraq’s SOFA agreement prior to the Inaugural. Fact is, a successful Iraq will happen *in spite* of Obama and his merry band of “withdraw now” protagonists in the Dem party.
Nor was it Obama’s grandstanding in Cairo that set the current Iranian events into motion. It was blatant electoral fraud, followed by oppressive regime tactics on demonstrators.
For those of us who pine for a President with genuine leadership and balls, we turn to an earlier era… as captured by Lorie Byrd at Townhall today.
President Obama has spent much of the past six months talking about all the things he inherited from George Bush. Unfortunately there are a lot of things he did not inherit from Bush, among them how to be the leader of the free world. The uprising in Iran has revealed Obama’s lack of leadership, but even worse, an apparent weakness when it comes to speaking up for freedom for everyone in the world.
~~~Those on the left, and some on the right, have praised President Obama’s approach. George Will said, “The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward that regime is, and they don’t need that reinforced.”
I don’t know that the people on the streets do “know full well what the American attitude toward that regime is.” They know what it was. (Does “axis of evil” ring a bell?) But maybe they also know how strongly President Obama has denounced his predecessor’s approach to foreign policy and his world view in general. Add to that Obama’s recent response to the protests and there are probably a lot of people around the world who don’t “know full well” what the American attitude now is.
President Bush spoke forcefully, and often, about freedom and liberty and democracy. The often tongue-tied public speaker Bush was most eloquent and at ease when talking about those principles. His desire to see freedom and democracy spread throughout the world is deeply heartfelt and that was evident in his speeches.
~~~To some extent President Obama has relinquished our country’s role as leader of the free world. He is reacting rather than leading. It is not necessary, nor would it be wise, for Obama to make the United States the issue. But what he could do is use some of his famous speechifying to really inspire and encourage those seeking freedom. There are people literally giving their lives in the streets in the pursuit of freedom and the supposed leader of the free world has been largely silent.
President Obama’s wait and see and try to say as little as possible approach on Iran stands in stark contrast to that of President George W. Bush. I wish Obama had inherited George Bush’s passion and commitment to those pursuing liberty and democracy around the world.
The following is from Bush’s 2006 State of the Union speech:
“Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause. Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time…”
“At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half — in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran — because the demands of justice and the peace of this world require their freedom as well. No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it…”
“Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.”
“America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And, tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”
That is, without question, leadership.
Already those disgruntled people like me, who are thoroughly embarrassed by the Eunuch in Chief, are facing the accusations of pounding the war drums. That leap is one they take totally in their narrow focus, or ignorance, of history.
In the past, the US has indeed used military force to aid the oppressed in foreign nations… i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea and the World Wars. But the US has also used other forms of support… from harsh sanctions (which generally prove ineffective) to covert funding of rebellion movements, as we did in the 80s in Afghanistan when funding the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, and the Nicaraguan rebels thru arms sales to Iran. When civil wars between the citizens and known tyrants and despots occur, often the playing field for military might and arms must be leveled… and this does not necessarily require US boots on the ground.
And yes, sometimes the rebel leadership turns out to be as corrupt as the overthrown regime. And perhaps that’s a checkmark in the plus column when you consider the US coalition, carefully eyeing the Iraqi’s progress when they were forming their Constitution instead of just bolting the country and leaving them to the powerful dogs left behind to seize power. But sometimes the dice must be rolled when the stakes are high.
For Iran, there should be no options taken off the table. While direct US military intervention should not be flaunted as the first and only remedy, nor should it be taken off the table. At the other end of the spectrum, none of the free world should stand idly by and watch the Iranian military powers mow down unarmed citizens with no 2nd Amendment rights. (And there by the grace of God go we…)
Speak loudly and unapologetically about Iran’s obvious tyranny. Pull the sanctions card from the sleeves. And do not hint at the international punishment for such barbarian rule…. promise it.
Most important… *never* abandon those who fight for freedom… covertly offering everything from words of support and inspiration to arms to defend themselves from a Totalitarian government. And for heavens sake… be prepared to stand along side them in their quest for a modern Iranian democracy.
All of the above appears to be beyond Obama’s capability as he remains focused on the false “hope” of talks with a corrupt regime. And in doing so, he will “doom” the demonstrators and youth. For his isolationist stance proves to those shedding blood on the streets in Iran that Obama’s America is not there for them… not in words, nor deeds.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I have to say the last few weeks have been encouraging. The more this fellow stands up and speaks, the more people will turn on him. He is clearly lost and fumbles around with his thoughts and finally spits out some gobble-de-gook. He always states the obvious and tries to dissect every question to appear like he has put thought into it. Without the weak media, he would be gone already. Unfortunately for him, I really believe more people are seeing the real Obama and that the ‘Hope’ was exactly that, just hope, no plan.
Wait till next month with the new unemployment figures.
In his answer to Major Garrett, he had the gaul to say his message on the Iranian situation has been consistent from day one. What a pile of excrement that is! This guy is a horrible lier.
And yet the man DOES NOTHING!
This is BEYOND weak. It is an abdication of the leadership Americans expect from their President.
and this was disgusting:
How can you have a debate with thugs who shoot and beat you? That’s not a debate, that’s a SLAUGHTER!
IMPEACH OBAMA!
Yawn… cue the crickets…
Given Hussein’s election experience and his undying love for ACORN, the Black Panthers and other champions of fair and impartial voting practices, our Messiah in Chief probably really CAN’T tell the difference between honest and rigged elections. No wonder he’s unwilling to call Iran’s vote the fraud it is. How would Hussein know?
What do you all expect from a man who thinks Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are diplomatic Icons.
You may not want to use that last example too often, since we sold those arms to the current crop of Iranian mullahs. eh?
The variable you seem to leave uncounted is our history in the Middle East. We’ve played both sides against the middle for decades. Consider that we:
* helped overthrow the nationalist government of Mossadeq to install the Shah,
* turned a blind eye to the Shah’s suppression of his people (SAVAK, anyone?),
* gave Saddam Hussein weapons for use against Iran,
* sold arms to the Iranian mullahs during Iran-Contra, and
* currently have large troop deployments on both the eastern and western borders of Iran, and
* have basically ignored them (as in “not even trying”) for eight years.
That’s a mixed message, at best. Toss in little things like the multiple occasions in which the US has betrayed the Kurds (in several countries), and it would seem that nothing short of direct military intervention would be ‘convincing’ at this point, and I don’t see too many folks advocating such a move at this time.
I think we have to be circumspect for the moment. The lines are not as clearly drawn as they were when President Reagan could speak so forcefully of events in Poland, or even when he could call “tear down this wall.” Even the protestors are not suggesting regime change, in that they do not generally call for Khamenei’s ouster; their protests are limited to Ahmadinejad’s ‘election,’ and the mullahs are likely to remain in ultimate power whether he or Mousavi emerges as the ‘winner.’
Even the much-maligned ‘July 4th invitation’ has a role to play in this picture. There’s a fairly long history of significant back-channel diplomacy taking place at such functions; in fact, our diplomatic opening to China, back in the Nixon era, involved more than a few instances of our respective diplomats talking and/or passing messages at otherwise innocuous functions such as these. (More recently, India and Pakistan have used such back-channel contacts to avoid escalation of tensions on several occasions.)
As Frank Herbert often said in the Dune series “wheels within wheels, plans within plans.”
Wes, certainly everything the US has done to aid the oppressed has not turned out as we planned over time. Even helping the mujihadeen in Afghanistan laid a path to the Taliban/AQ haven over a decade later. There were visions for Iraq, but no one knew for sure how it would turn out…. would they get their act together with a commendable Constitution for uniting their factions.
Fact is, sometimes the status quo is unacceptable, and you have to roll the dice on the “change”… just as 52.8% of Americans did on this loser in the WH. As I’ve said before, it’s not that the other candidates in the Iranian election were that more appealing. What is important is that the election and the Iranian’s votes reflected their desires for a more moderate and less interfering government. If they didn’t like that Ahmadinejad replacement, they’d blow him out the door in the next election.
You wish to speak of all the US aid to the oppressed as failures. But you miss the point. The US has always picked the side that reflects the best chance for positive advance toward freedom and human rights to support…. not necessarily immediate, but offering that reform as a stepping stone possibility. That was done because the status quo was unacceptable. I place Iran’s regime in that status… unacceptable. And it’s obvious so do the Iranian people.
However, under Obama, we are now “isolationists” on our value system. You think doing nothing is an improvement because past events haven’t worked out to your ideal end? Well news flash… doing nothing has it’s own repercussions. We tried that in WWII. Had we done nothing after 911, the Taliban and AQ will still be in absolute control of Afghanistan. Had we not gone into Iraq, AQ and jihad would still be revered by the Muslim world as freedom fighters, and not the brutal, power hungry and oppressive mongrels they are.
You, like Obama, are so worried about making a decision that may prove wrong in the future, you are paralyzed to stand proudly and defiantly in the face of human rights abuses and tyranny. For you as a private citizen, that’s fine. But that is completely unacceptable for an American President.
This Iranian event will go down as a lost opportunity in history… and a hallmark of piss poor judgment by the new “follower of the free world”.
Oh yes… forgot to address this blatantly erroneous statement:
Uh huh… that’s why they are chanting “death to the dictator [the Ayatollah]. death to amadinejad” and “God is great” from their rooftops at 10pm every night, and at the demonstrations. And the rooftop event is getting louder every evening.
Don’t you read, Wes?
Obama respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran just as Democrats respected the property rights of slaveholders around the time of the Civil War.
Just my little addition to the conversation.
Compare the current “leadership” with a man who knew the meaning of freedom and how to deal with despots and tyrants.
Courtesy embed by Mata
Mr. Obama, while you’re in a “not inteferring mood”, how about backing off and not interferring in my life with your stupid health care reform and cap and trade legislation thats certainly going to cost me, my children and grandchildren thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars not to mention their prospects for good jobs.
Wow Mata, couldn’t be any prouder of you!
BTW, Wes… just to correct your history again
Not factual. You are getting your Khomenei’s mixed up. During Iran Contra in 1986, it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinei. He died in 1989, and the Council appointed the current supreme Leader, Ali Khomenei as his replacement. At that time, Hashemi Rafsanjani – a reform leader – also is elected.
Different leadership. Different era.
Altho my point to you is not about your dyslexic historic timeline specifics, but the fact that the US has always taken action… of various kinds… to aid pro democracy forces of freedom around the world.
Until now, that is.
I guess we’ll continue the discussion here … I find it odd that your examples of US intervention in the Middle East have both been eventual failures, and yet you suggest “rolling the dice” again in a similar fashion. I agree that Democracy promotion is worth the risks, but why don’t we learn from these events that outright Western involvement can have long-term negative consequences.
Let’s get factual. In 2005, for example, the US didn’t just ignore, but tacitly supported the oppressor in similar protests in Egypt or the massacre of hundreds of people in Andijan. The United States (rightly) acts in the interest of it’s citizens – oftentimes this coincides with democracy promotion, and other times it does not. No one was crying “Where are their votes” when Hezbollah took 55% in Lebanon but didn’t get the parliamentary majority; and for good reason. Wesmorgan has already detailed the baggage between us and Iran specifically. You can certainly hope that the US transforms into a global peace-keeper, but to assume that this is how the international community sees us is naive and dangerous (on that note, I’m curious to see your evidence that the Muslim world has a negative opinion of AQ because of Iraq).
So far you’ve made a lot of statements about Obama “standing proudly” and “leading the free world”, but besides more empty talk, what do you actually want him to do openly? And do you have any evidence that the Iranian opposition even wants this kind of direct involvement?
BTW, INRE Muslims’ views of jihad and Iraq… both Wordsmith and I have past posts on this, and I’m not rehashing it on this thread.
Try my Jan post on the Bush legacy to Obama, and in February, when all the hardline Islamic parties lost ground in the Iraq election. Guess they didn’t win any “hearts and minds” while there, eh?
And oh, BTW… no statements about Obama “standing strong” or “leading the free world” from me. He is the Eunuch in Chief, and “follower of the free world”. And I have already said what I want him to do MANY times, triz. And it could not be more plainly stated that the last four paragraphs of this post on which you comment.
“eventual failures”… you mean like the US is on course to be after Obama?
Nothing is permanent, triz. What may seem to be a wise decision today may not necessarily translate to eternal success downline.
You still miss the point… and I’ll say it once more and just be done with you. At no time is abandoning support for freedom and democracy a wise choice. When you have a status quo that is unacceptable, and the opposition offers a possible step towards democracy and reform, you do so.
And “rolling the dice” includes the option of doing nothing and it’s repercussion…. and that’s the bet Obama is making.
Again you focus on the negatives. Iraq is better off…. first after our military deposition of Saddam, and their our support network as they get on their feet. Women in Afghanistan have it much better. The world is better off after WWII. South Korea is better off. Bosnia? Kosovo? Hard to say, eh? Milosovic is history.
The US lends support and atta boys to Lebanon, who constantly battles their Hezbollah attempts to seize complete control. We lend support to Colombia, constantly under siege from Venezuela and FARC, plus drug lords.
But to you, everything is a failure, so “do nothing” is your answer? Remind me never to have you watch my back.
@wesmorgan1:
What we’ve done is protect what was in America’s national interest at the time. ALL nations act upon their interests. Not just the U.S. No apology should really be necessary for less than ideal outcomes when the alternative vision would probably have left the world worse off (as Mata says, “you have to roll the dice”, and not sit on the sidelines, wracked with hand-wringing inaction).
Why does the lopsided anti-American myth persist that “the CIA led a 1953 coup to overthrow a legitimate democratic government in Iran” (to the point that Obama in his Cairo speech perpetuates the anti-American perspective)?
What was the legitimacy of Mossadeq’s rule? He intimidated and terrorized political opponents, staged rigged elections, declared martial law in 1951, dissolved the supreme court and parliament in 1953, reneged on agreements with the British and seized (i.e., stole) billions of dollars worth of infrastructure- pipelines, oil refineries and derricks; leading the Brits to call upon the Americans to help them with a COUNTER-coup.
Remember, too, that this was happening amidst the backdrop of the Cold War and there were honest fears he was moving into the sphere of influence of the Soviets.
Question: Is Iran better off today under the current regime or under the previous one that fell?
Did we exchange a “brutal” dictator- one who was deeply pro-American to a fault, who brought Iran into modernity and promoted women’s rights- for an even more brutal regime- one that is staunchly anti-American, responsible for terrorism, is dangerously theocratic, and repressive to women? Why don’t the anti-Americans use our failure (under Carter) of 1979 in not supporting our pro-American ally as an American shame, instead of using 1953 as our disgrace?
In foreign policy, there is the principle of the lesser of two evils.
The Shah was clearly the lesser of two evils. And Iran and the U.S. (and the world) would have been better off today had the rise of Islamic militancy not seized governance of Iran.
If we still had a pro-American ally in the heart of the Middle East (the Shah’s Iran rather than the Mullahs’ Iran), would we have felt the need to once again gamble upon the principle of the lesser of two evils?
All decisions have consequences and I believe we made the logical decisions at the time when we supported Stalin over Hitler, the Shah over Mossadeq, etc.
I think wesmorgan’s point was to show the contentious history between the US and modern day Iran that may be an obstacle to our direct involvement now. But there’s a weird tendency here to say “we chose the better of two evils” and assume that such direct action is inherently better than indirect diplomacy, so let’s look at it empirically. There are several countries in the Middle East (namely Egypt and Jordan) with which diplomacy has been a successful tool – mind you, these were countries that 20 years ago we had considered terrorist states, and are now essentially allied with Israel. In the other corner, there are the countries with which we have engaged directly (namely Iran and Afghanistan circa the 80’s) that have responded only with radicalization. I look at that history and see success in a slow process of marginalizing fringe religious groups and economic pressure. You look at it and say let’s roll the dice again on another military engagement while we’re still dealing with two others.
MataHarley, you talk about what you want Obama to do but your statements only appeal to pro-democracy rhetoric, and you dodge the question of how we back-up such rhetoric. If you want military intervention, then have the conviction to stand by that sentiment (likewise for sanctions, etc). Otherwise, your complaint against Obama is either purely rhetorical, or boils down to simple partisan anger over his intentions and motivations that you assume are wrong because of who he is.
Btw, thanks for the link to that detailed January post – definitely an eye-opener; I’m curious how pro-American sentiment has changed in the same time-frame, but I’ll grant you that anti Al Qaeda sentiment is up.
Dodge? I don’t know how I can be any more plain in my last paragraphs, triz. So I guess I’ll have to dissect it word by word for you.
No military intervention first.
I’ll take sanctions and financial freezes (as Britain has done), plus and arming of the rebellion as a first step. The Iranians are not looking for anyone to fight their battle for them. They are, however, looking for whatever support and aid they need… which they will dictate.
The former (sanctions) will not work any more than it’s worked in the past, and only negatively affects the population and not the regime. But to appease the pacifists in the world, it’s a token step that must be taken. If the Iranians wish a revolution, I want the playing field leveled. No tanks against unarmed citizens that have no 2nd Amendment.
We’ve removed despots for genocide before. This is politicide wreaked on their own citizens. It is no less acceptable. If the world doesn’t want to again remove another tryrant who gives the order to murder dissenteres in the streets, and round them up in the dead of night, then arrest and jail the leaders and hault them in front of their beloved ICC. Of course we know the UN will never have the balls to do that.
All of the above steps are an option… including military intervention should the Iranians desire that aid.
I’m not so sure what you can’t seem to understand. It simply comes down to this. They should be supported in their quest for human rights, freedom and fair election. No fence straddling from the “follower of the free world” allowed. This is, in my American (not Obama’s), an inherent right. I assure you, if they believe the free world is behind them, they will let us know what help they need…. whether it’s arresting the leadership, arming them, or standing along side them to fight. The call is their’s to make, and there should be nothing off the table as an option for aid.
So if you’re trying to portray me as a two-option kind of girl… i.e. do nothing, or invade…. hold your breath.
Yes… I am pro-democracy. Just as generations before me in this country have been. Call that rhetoric if you wish. It is a legacy I am proud of, and am sorry to see tossed into the garbage by the Eunuch in Chief.
Dodge?
triz… this needs clarification from you, and I’m bringing this to your attention on it’s own.
Exactly what are you trying to say here? I want to make sure I am not leaping to the wrong conclusion, so I will allow time for you to make abundantly clear what you mean by “because of who he is”.
@MataHarley:
What Mata said. 🙂
@trizzlor:
Not at all inconsistent! We’ve been criticized for our support of the Saudi royal families and for an Egyptian government that is still repressive. We’ve been blamed for supporting dictators. But here, what would the alternative choice be? What would replace the Saudi royals? Wahhabism. They and the secular Egyptian government have been in the cross-hairs of al Qaeda. Do we want the same fate to befall countries we are allied with that befell Iran?
It’s why to many, Bush might sound inconsistent with his message of freedom and democracy:
Qutbists often cite the U.S. as complicit in the abuses of the Egyptian government, for its support; yet what is their alternative vision? It won’t be to uplift the poor, to establish greater equal rights for women, etc. It’d be to establish Islamic law and a more repressive society; because they perceive all its woes are due to the government being too secular and too embracing of modernity and western influence and not Islamic enough.
For all the criticism leveled at us for supporting Musharraf, we were right in seeking his alliance and making him an imperfect partner in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. He did what he could to root out Islamist sympathizers within his own ranks, and his forces have helped deliver to us high-value al Qaeda leaders like KSM.
Just like us, when asked why he once supported the Taliban but was now siding with the U.S., Musharraf replied, “Because our national interest has changed.” His life was in constant danger, yet he chose to be “with us” rather than “against us”. And because he was a flawed leader, because he didn’t have a perfect human rights record, because he didn’t have 100% control over the Islamists in his country, he was ostracized by sanctimonious Carteresque human rights watchers and Bush-haters.
And please don’t mistake my comment above as somehow expressing loving support for governments that are still wracked with corruptions, human rights abuses, etc. Again: the principle of lesser evils.
@trizzlor:
Yes, that could be. A lot of people- including and especially Iranians- have been fed a very lopsided perspective at American meddling.
@MataHarley: I’m saying that your problem with Obama is that he us a usurper, man-child, liberal-fascist, etc. rather than with his particular actions. You’re convicting him of crimes he has yet to commit because you know he will. You’ve made this quite clear in your hypothetical response to Bin Laden’s capture, because you just know that Obama would strut around; or in your response to his D-Day speeches, because you just know that Obama must secretly hate the troops. Look around the comments here and see how much vitriol is based on mind-reading and arm-chair psychoanalysis – I’m not really saying anything out of the ordinary.
Back to the point, your solution is essentially to give the Iranian opposition whatever support they ask for, and I agree with you – especially considering both opposition leaders and prominent dissidents have asked us to just stay out of the way. We both know that sanctions will be ineffective, especially without the EU (correct me if I’m wrong, but Britain has only imposed diplomatic sanctions). Other then that, we’ve got covert ops & arming the resistance (I prefer copiers to Kalashnikovs, but whatever works) which Obama certainly should not be talking about; and a military threat that I doubt we have the capacity for, and that no one has requested. So that leaves us with … rhetoric?
@Wordsmith: My problem is not with choosing the lesser of two evils, and I’m not going to pull the lefty bullshit that because we can’t support a pure leader we should support none (or that you personally are corruption-lover). In fact, I think this is a hypocrisy that we need to make clear to the right as well – who are shrill over potential talks with Ahmadinejad but support arms sales to other despots. However, what I see historically in the Middle East is that military intervention, even arming-the-resistance type, has repeatedly backfired; while traditional diplomacy and marginalization has been effective or benign.
“…. convicting him of crimes he has yet to commit”?? Let’s see…
usurper… you mean as in using the treasury department and the WH to usurp federal bankruptcy laws and moving the unions ahead of the secured investor pensioners? Or all the czar appointments that have neither Congressional oversight, participation and approval of appointment? Or how about funneling TARP cash, outside the legal scope of those funds to financial institutions in order to seize auto manufacturers? Naw… no “usurping” there.
man-child…. no clue where you get this from me. He’s naive, well out of his depth of experience, and a eunuch. Never once have I called him a “man-child”. He has none of the honesty or innocence of a child, but I supposed he could be called man… sans the needed cajones. He uses his goon squads for the dirty work, as is the tactic of most Chicago thugs.
liberal-fascist… absolutely. Seizing control of banks and auto industries… from not only accounting but also to advertising and marketing (forcing GM out of NASCAR, and demanding specific car design as a line up). Replacing CEOs at will, or under pressure. Using political pressure to quell lawsuits (Chrysler pensioners). Demanding extra treasury powers to control salary caps and regulatory oversight of any company.. not limited to financial institutions… that is publicly traded that he – or his treasury god – deems an economic systemic risk. Pushing the path to single payer health care by destroying the ability to compete and fudging the numbers. Attempting to control the census by using his corrupt, devoted right arm ACORN, and attempting to instill the power of the WH for oversight.
Hell no… no fascism going on here.
Oh yes… what response to D-Day speeches are you babbling about? Provide me with what rattles your cage, and I’ll lay it out for you more specifically.
Really? Now why don’t you provide us with some quotes of the opposition Iranians on the streets that are asking the US to stay out of the way. Quite in fact, what they are on record as asking is that Obama does *not* recognize the Ahmadinejad regime as legitimate or they “are doomed”. That is their sole request, as well as verbal support… Obama gives them neither. And, in fact, without either a re-election or a genuine recount with int’l oversight, that election is not legitimate.
Then I shall correct you. Both Britain and the EU have frozen Iranian assets. These measures are already in place by the US, placed there by the eunuch’s predeccesor, Dubya.
Oddly enough, five EU countries, including Britain, did this in the middle of June, and days before the demonstrations started, in response to the collapse of talks with Tehran over the nuke enrichment. Of course the wide eyed, prozac laden like Larry W. thinks Iran is going after Britain as the “Great Satan” instead of the US because they spoke more harsh of Iran’s terrorist tactics on their citizens…. Fact is, they have a huge beef with Britain on this because of their long, and unpleasant history with British imperialism (they do so hold a grudge…) as well as the sanctions.
They may hold out “hope” for manipulating Obama since he’s already pointed out he’s ripe for manipulating. He doesn’t care if the leadership is there via an illegitimate election, and he will do nothing about human rights abuses as it’s an “internal” fight. That, however, still did not stop them from aiming their fingers at the US, along with the rest of the western world.
Obama doesn’t need to spill his guts about covert operations *or* military potential. What he does need to do is point out that if Iran insists upon not cleaning up the legitimacy of their election, and doesn’t stop with the human rights abuses, that there will be consequences… specifics unknown. He could also mention that further financial freezes as well as sanctions could be piled on.
But nooooooo…
Obama has, in fact, not recognized the election as legitimate (“wait and see”, etc.) and has provided verbal support (“condemn”, etc.) as FA has reported here on multiple occasions. As for sanctions, obviously I was talking about a response to the election; those that have already been in place for months aren’t exactly strong leverage (your links suggest this was done in June of last year). But to the point, you yourself said that sanctions are ineffective; I don’t see how they can have any impact on short-term situations like this one but to further motivate the regime as “a nationalist entity standing against the evil West” (as we have seen with Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Serbia, Burma and on and on) – show me an example where sanctions actually turned a non-democratic regime on internal politics?
Taking a page from the UN playbook? Your prescription is a vague, empty threat which no US president could act on in a timely manner. This is the type of rhetoric that either lowers our credibility in being forceful, or emboldens opposition movements to get violent, thinking they have our support, and be slaughtered (as has happened time and time again in the Middle East under both Bushes and Clinton alike) … but let’s roll the dice again.
Triz, Obama and his advisors are set to negotiate with whomever is in power… legitimate or not. That has been made crystal clear. It is the center piece for his excuses for remaining silent… so as to not rile the hornets nest for future negotiations. As for the legitimacy…. all news, even from the Iranian Council, is that the votes were rigged via percentage and that irregularities exist. The Ayatollah has already certified that result, and refuses a full recount with int’l oversight. Pray tell, how long before Obama acknowledges that the “winner” is merely an Ayatollah appointee, and not a legitimately elected President? The Ayatollah has spoken. The five days review complaint period is merely show. What do you think is going to change between today and Ahmadinejad’s swearing in early August?
“Condeming” the brutality is a no brainer. He, however, did not use any strong language about their police tactics until after most of Europe came out, and the US criticism started. He was boxed into a corner, and his advisors had him go out with a stronger statement to counteract that criticism.
As for the freeze on the assets… You are correct, and I am in error. Mea culpa. My Iranian bookmarks are vast, and I grabbed the old links. That was updated in June of this year when the EU ruled Britain was wrong to freeze the assets of the Ambassador. Apologies.
They’re still peeved at Britain for freezing the assets, on top of launching their BBC Persian TV broadcast into Iran in Farsi. Iranian State TV doesn’t like balanced coverage provided to their citizens, and int’l news is “meddling” to them.
And yes, I said and do believe sanctions are ineffective. But you will also remember I said they are a PC step that the liberal mindset insists we do as part of “diplomacy” prior to military action. Rather like filing a permit before building a house…
INRE a play from the UN playbook. There is value in what you say that a “specifics unknown” from Obama indeed IS a vague empty threat. Thank you for reminding me that Dubya… who never issued empty threats… is no longer in the White House.
The point is, the threats should be made, and followed up on. Obama will neither make the threats, nor follow up.
UPDATE on the British freeze on assets….
Just grabbed the wrong year’s article, Triz. Britain did indeed place another freeze on Iranian assets last week INRE their nuke negotiations. From Time’s Jun 25th, 2009 article:
So many freezes over so many years… hard to keep all the bookmarks straight. Remembered the freeze… just didn’t remember which dang article I read it in. Went for the “headline” and saw the “June”. LOL
@MataHarley:
The point in not recognizing Ahmadinejad was to give the opposition breathing room. I imagine he’ll wait until (at worst) the opposition has clearly been defeated or (at best) succeeded and then “let’s talk with the leadership you now have so that next time this happens we have some leverage”. It will not be the first time an American president has effectively negotiated with a despot after internal brutality, and it’s time people start recognizing that this has been a necessary evil for centuries. Of course, there’s been a lot of anti-engagement talk recently, and (as with Georgia) we see how Obama often starts off with sane principles but is easily swayed in the direction of the hawks. Frankly, I think Obama has no ideological problem with interventionist policy, so this is wishful thinking on my part that he keeps to his word on engagement.
Agreed, though I would go so far as to say that sanctions can do more short-term harm than good, and I’m glad that Obama is not bending to the left on this one.
🙂 That’s what I’m here for. You’ve got a point with Iraq, but take a look at Bush’s response to the Georgian crisis. Statements of “concern” and “condemnation” that are awfully similar to Obama’s, with Cheney making empty threats that “Russian aggression must not go unanswered”. Russia called our bluff and did as they pleased … Saakashvili proclaimed our statements as support and then betrayal .. and the American people felt as if they had done something. Everybody loses.
Obama has neither recognized, nor rejected the Ayatollah’s certification of a stolen, illegitimate election. He will, as you readily admit, negotiate with Iran and recognize Ahmadinejad since he doesn’t want to appear to “meddle”.
What it is about you and your POTUS that you don’t want to accept reality? This election is fraudulent.
The simple fact you don’t want to accept is this… Obama doesn’t care if the election is legit or not. He simply plans to deal with whomever is there, and fairness and human rights in Iran be damned.
Iran bears no relationship to Bush’s reaction to the Russia-Georgia event. The US and Russia have relations that grew from the first nuke talks and bold strides of Reagan, and eventually led to the Loose Nukes agreement in ’92. We also share occupation of the Int’l Space Station. Russia is a member of the G8. None of our relationship with Russia resembles the non-relationship we have with Iran. To compare the two is simply absurd.
As far as alluding to “empty threats”, and Cheney saying that Russia’s aggression must not go “unanswered”, your memory of recent events is truly flawed. Russian troops moved into South Ossetia in the first week of Aug 2008. No one took a “wait and see” attitude. Bush stepped up immediately, with even stronger comments by Cheney as a back up. Four days later, President Medvedev had halted the invasion. Bush/Cheney always made a stellar good cop/bad cop combo, and the world knew that when the Cowboy Prez spoke, he meant what he said. Point of fact, the int’l community swung into action and the French presidency member of the EU mediated a settlement. The events, the warnings, and the action led to a ceasefire within a week.
See any similarities? If so, I want some of what you are smoking…
Care to give us a recent example? And make sure that the negotiations you mention were “effective”, as you state. Because Carter was a real roll over for Iran, and they were his political death. Ironic, eh? Especially since Iran may just well do the same to Obama. It may be Iran that exposes the eunuch in chief to the world. I only hope they do it before he destroys our economy completely.
This election has been fraudulent ever since the Council of Guardians approved the candidates; the irregularities in Mousavi’s totals are just icing – I have no delusions about that.
You’ve seen them in this very thread with Musharaff and the Saudis; a few decades back it was Egypt and Jordan, as well as China (a particularly apt example considering Tiananmen) and Gorbachev. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find an example of democracy promotion that didn’t involve either engaging with a brutal despot, or an outright war – particularly in the Middle East. This whole idea of “pre-conditions” is a very new one, and is a fairly transparent way of giving the US cover for military action (as if we had no other choice). Yes, Obama plans encourage internal unrest as best he can, and then proceed to deal with whomever is in power as has been our policy since well before Reagan.
Agreed (sometimes I feel like we’re seeing eye to eye from opposite sides of a gulch) but as your major point here has been rhetoric, I think it’s fair to compare rhetoric vs. actions of Bush & Georgia to Obama & Iran. Your interpretation of the Ossetian war is pretty rosy to say the least. Russia compromised nothing – they occupied Gori, “liberated” Abkhazia & South Ossetia, and even forced Georgia to let Russia continue indefinite occupation as peace-keepers and continued raids. Read the six-point plan and tell me a single concession that Russia made. Sure the EU swung into action … to save face after having been completely powerless. Moreover, for all of Cheney’s bluster that “Russian aggression must not go unanswered”, there were no reprisals enforced by the US. Maybe I’ve got a tad too much lingering anti-Soviet anger, but the Ossetian crisis was a damn embarrassment and a clear example of empty words leading to empty deeds: the US/EU were a laughing-stock within Russia and former republics no longer has confidence that they could depend on our assurances. I’m starting to feel like a broken record.
triz, again you cannot compare Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as we have relations with them as allies and, in the case of at lesat Saudi Arabia, trade relations. We have no similar relationship with Iran.
Obama “plans to encourage internal unrest”? My my. Where do you get this idea since he has not picked up on Bush’s democracy initiatives? Perhaps you can give us something to substantiate the opinion.
On only dealings with Iran… somewhat indirectly… was INRE Iraq. Otherwise we have not had a policy to deal with Iran since Carter and the hostage situation.
INRE South Ossetia… the primary difference is the US leadership spoke out strongly, and in tandem with the int’l community, actions were taken. INRE Iran… it’s a “wait and see” with tepid words of criticism. How you can equate action… diplomatic or otherwise… with “wait and see” is an enigma to me.
Since none of us has as crystal ball for alternative universes, we have no idea what Bush/Cheney would have done had the EU mitigated terms of a cease fire. But then, I sincerely doubt Congress and the already Obama smitten would have accepted any military action against Russia at that period in Bush’s term. Instead, they were busy trying to convince the US voters that Bush was going to bomb Iran.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our allies because we engaged with brutal dictators, that’s exactly my point. I am making no comparison – you asked for examples where engagement has worked and now you disregard them because it has been lastingly effective?
Neither of us know weather Congress has picked up the Bush initiatives or not because it’s wrapped up in discretionary spending – the $70 million Iran Democracy Initiative (which has not been dismantled yet) is a small piece of a much larger program of covert ops in Iran. I’m sure our assumptions differ on the status of these operations, but neither of us can confirm or deny them. At the very least, we do know that VOA Persia and Radio Farda are broadcasting currently and will likely get even more Congressional funding.
As for South Ossetia, no crystal ball needed. Cheney stated that “Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States.” The aggression did continue even well past the cease-fire, with absolutely no consequences from the US – this is simply a fact. Again, I’m not equating the Georgian situation with that of Iran, but there could be no clearer example of Bush’s empty threats and their repercussions.
I’m sorry, Triz, but are you equating the Pakistan elections and their form of government… as well as Musharraf… with Iran and Ahmadinejad? “Brutal dictator”?? Sorry… no go. And the Saudis and monarchy have been allies and trade partners for a long time. You do remember staging for Desert Storm from the peninsula. Again, I don’t place their regimes where I would place Iran’s, and Iraq under Saddam.
But we did attempt to deal with Saddam. That got us no where. Dealing with Castro and Chavez gets us no where.
And what “continued aggression” are you talking about in South Ossetia? Russian forces were out by Aug 22, leaving only some security/observation checkpoints. And those were gone by early October. No military aggression after the ceasefire.
Those “empty threats” resulted in action that had the Russians backing off. Not so empty afterall, eh?
BTW, Triz… a little history on the US-Saudi relationship, as you somehow have a bizarre view of how and when the US started doing something more than recognizing the kingdom back in 1931…. including how and when we built and leased the first airbase at Dhahran after WWII. Hang, we were even minting the riyal in that era.
While like every Muslim country with which we do have relations – a love/hate/mutual advantage relationship – it bears not an iota of resemblence to Iran.
Saudi Arabia and the United States, 1931-2002 by Josh Pollack
Thomas Lippman’s American Influence on Modern Saudi Arabia
For someone who professes to stand strongly behind freedom and democracy, I’m surprised you’re splitting hairs over the applicability of “brutal”. Musharaff suspended the constitution and jailed thousands of opposition politicians and lawyers; the Saudi’s live under sharia – I don’t think I need to expand on what that means for women, minorities, and political opposition; . Certainly Russia and China committed worse human rights atrocities than Iran. Can we retire this silly notion that the US doesn’t practice engagement and diplomacy with despots?
Bush/Cheney made their statements three days into the war, and Russia continued military operations for another four until they had the Georgian capital cornered – that’s what I would call continued aggression. Moreover, for days after the ceasefire, Russia continued raids and moved further into Georgia, even while Condi was in Tbilisi. Name one “serious consequence” for Russian-US relations that resulted from this?
The simple fact is that the US has never acted in an absolutist way – Bush negotiated with some despots and shunned others, he kept some threats and broke others. To argue otherwise requires constantly shifting goal-posts on straightforward concepts like brutality and repercussions.
BTW, thanks for the Kingdom links – Pollack does a thorough summary though I would like to see him continue it; I was not aware of how deep this relationship went. Lippman is very engaging – this kind of slow, boring diplomacy is the effective middle-road that neither the left (sanctions pipe-dreams) nor the right (risky military operations) has embraced.
And for someone who professes to represent themselves as somewho who reads, I’m surprised that you don’t know when.. and if.. the Zardari replacement government has reinstated these judges who were central to your argument. I’m not going to educate you. Do it yourself. Rest assured you’ve just embarrassed yourself profusely with your soundbyte education.
Specifics on just what “despots” Bush dealt with? And oh, BTW… this is an “American” value argument. Not a “bust v o” argument… just in case you want to orient your personal political priorities.
This isn’t a debate over Musharaff versus Zardari but over weather or not the United States has recently engaged with governments/leaders that carried out flagrant anti-democratic activities (the most apt criteria for a “despot” considering we’re talking about democracy promotion) – it’s no question that Pakistan is one such case. Again when the facts don’t match up with your contention you simply shift the goal-posts, this time off the field entirely. Just the fact that you continue debating against this point while simultaneously championing Bush’s continued alliance with a sharia government speaks volumes.
I really don’t know what this means; my political priorities are oriented towards looking at what has historically been effective in securing American interests. I’m starting to think that you honestly believe in the circular argument that a government which is allied with the US cannot inherently be despotic; that being on our side somehow nullifies all of their other actions that would objectively mark them as against democracy and liberty.
Pakistan, like the US, has state of emergency and martial law measures, triz. Your concept of “facts don’t match up” with my contention is your insistance that Pakistan and Musharraf measures up to the oppressive regime in Iran. Your “proof” of this is to regurgitate Musharraf’s removal of the judges, and then the government efforts to rein in control over the ensuing results with a state of emergency declaration. At a time when those judges were releasing Taliban/AQ terrorists, this was part of his responses.
As for the CBS headline “suspending Constitution”… the order obtained by the AP had something else to say about that state of emergency measures.
I can’t speak to whether that decision was justified, since I’m not familiar with the Pakistan Constitution. What I can, however, note is that Bhutto… and then Zardari, her husband… campaigned on immediate restoration of those judges within 30 days of forming the new government. When they, and the Nawaz PML-N parties gained coalition control in the 2008 election (both pro-restoration), they did not do so…. citing differences over both legal and Constitutional issues. Not to mention the PPP, like Musharraf, had reservations about those judges.
And in fact, did not restore the judges until May of this year, and only after under extreme populus pressure, experiencing similar violence to what Musharraf dealth with. He had the choice to go the same route to control the violence, or cave into restoring the questionable judge. That’s over a year after their ascent to power, and well after their campaign promises. Apparently, what you consider a cut and dried issue, is not so cut and dried.
The specifics aside, the problem here is you equate an out of the norm emergency action in Pakistan with what goes on daily in Iran. If that’s your threshhold, then any country that has ever ordered emergency measures, or a degree of martial law, falls into your category of “flagrant anti-democratic activities”. Lincoln did so in 1863. What a tyrant he was, eh?
Other US tyrants that imposed varying states of emergency measures include a then General Andrew Jackson in the war of 1812, an Idaho Governor in 1892, a Colorado Governor in 1914 where President Wilson sent in federal troops, California Governor Frank Merriam in 1934 to quell riots over a dockworkers’ strike, and after natural disasters such as the 1906 SF earthquake and in NO after Katrina.
And, in fact, if the definition criteria for Pakistan’s state of emergency (not martial law, according to him) is similiar to the US, it falls short of that when troops are or may be deployed, but the civil courts are still functioning.
All this means, of course, is that the US has done similar action to Musharraf in our own history. Does that make us engaging in “anti-democratic activities” too? What happens in an unusual instance in Pakistan is not the same as what goes on at will in Iran daily.
Thus there is no moving of goal posts, as you insist. The battle here is whether Musharraf and Pakistan is a despotic form of government, as you suggest it is. Your reasoning for believing so is decidedly questionable.
And for your own education, you need to know that Pakistan under Musharraf, and per the populus votes, is not a nation under Shariah law. The only areas under that now are the territories… and that happened only this past year under this government that the western press touted to the world as Pakistan’s answer to democracy. Quite in fact, in the past elections, that nation has voted consistently to keep the parties that want to change Pakistan to Shariah law as an extreme minority in Parliament.
BTW, in case you didn’t remember, Condi and the Bush admin *did* go on record protesting Musharraf’s emergency declaration. (which is also reported in your own referenced URL). And yes, I will champion Bush’s alliance with particular Muslim nations. But there is a big difference between the UAE, Pakistan and Lebanon to Iran and Saddam’s Iraq. He has said many a time that a Muslim democracy will not resemble our own, nor should it. But there are some basics that need to be recognized before you wander in to a tea party with self-appointed tyrants.
The sharia country I was referring to was Saudi Arabia, a point you’ve been avoiding – I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue that certain groups in the Kingdom have fewer rights than the citizens of Iran: protesting against the government is completely forbidden, women are thrown in jail for the crime of being raped, etc.
I’m glad you noticed Bushes condemnation of Musharaff’s acts – I think that is a good indicator of how democratic his actions were. I’m sure you also noted the following sentence, stating that the US is not changing any aspects of it’s relationship with Pakistan.
How the heck do you figure I’ve been “avoiding” Saudi Arabia, triz? Horse manure. Considering that I gave you two stellar links to our very long standing relationship wtih SA since WWII, you’d know that our relations with the Kingdom is nothing like Iran and is, in fact, central to the reason for AQ’s excuse to wage war with the US. SA exiled OBL, and does not lend him political support. Where it was not definitive that they lent passive support, they actively work to dismantle AQ. Does Iran do this with Hezbollah and Hamas?
And in fact, SA’s cooperation stepped up post 911, but even more so after their own terrorist assault in May 2003.
They are a monarchy, and introduced a central government in the 50s. Sound familiar? Like the UK and their combo monarchy/central government?
They have been allies with allowing US bases, airspace and were instrumental in the first Gulf War. Tell when Iran has ever been so responsive in aid to the US?
I don’t expect Muslim countries to emulate the US in human rights by the very nature of Islam itself. Then there’s that “a Muslim democracy will not resemble the US” bit again. The same can be said for Communist China and Russia. But again, I do not equate our relationship with Saudi Arabia with Iran because of the longevity of our relationship, and their aid to the US in many a conflict. Again, tell me when Iran has ever been, or even gives an indication of, responsible aid to the US?
Yes, they support Israel withdrawal from occupied territories as a condition of formal recognition, but they are not like Iran who actively works to wage war and destroy Israel. SA was not participants in the Arab-Israeli war, but did lend economic support to Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the aftermath. They officially dropped their embargo on Israel, which they were part of as a member in the Arab League, in order to join WTO (which they’d been trying to do since the early 1990s). And the Saudis have been working on Iran to discontinue their enrichment program and to comply with UN resolutions.
The short story of it all is, the US has had relations with SA since recognizing them in the early 30s. While the relations have been strained over Israel and other conflicts, they are the antithesis to Iran with support on intel and military accommodation. Are they the poster child of what we want to see in a ME nation? Hang no…. They are draconian on their population, as many nations are. Even the UK has become more draconian, with the US dutifully following in their path.
But we’ve never had to engage them as an uncooperative enemy…. ala Iran. Big difference.
I’m starting to think that you honestly believe in the circular argument that a government which is allied with the US cannot inherently be despotic; that being on our side somehow nullifies all of their other actions that would objectively mark them as against democracy and liberty.
From your relativist defense of Saudi Arabia (more like the UK than Iran? Really?) is it fair to say that this assumption was correct? Then we’re essentially arguing past each other because our fundamental definition of an anti-democratic government is so different … but let me try to get the main points straight:
1. Under Bush, the United States has engaged diplomatically with countries that have acted against these principles of Democracy (let’s put Musharaff down as a “maybe”) – where political opposition is punishable by death and women/minorities are routinely jailed as second-class citizens. These internal policies are as bad if not worse than those of Iran, but we have tolerated them because support from these countries is integral in securing other US interests in the middle east. I’m not trying to nitpick, but there is some contradiction between this type of policy and your claim that the US has “always taken action… of various kinds… to aid pro democracy forces of freedom“, unless your definition of “various kinds” is loose enough to include anything. In fact, Bush has pragmatically sacrificed short-term liberalization for long-term stability by maintaining alliances with a sharia government; much like Obama would if he were to maintain negotiations with an unfairly elected leader. Your distinction between these two scenarios has nothing to do with direct democracy or freedom, but hinges on the fact that the Saudis have shown good faith towards the US and Iran has not.
2. Historically, the United States has successfully engaged with anti-democratic states that had not yet shown such good faith. In particular, Bush I continued talks with China shortly after Tiananmen and Reagan met repeatedly with Gorbachev throughout the brutal repression of the Solidarity movement. These talks were a way of marginalizing anti-US sentiment and identifying common interests that could later be used as leverage, and they were more effective than years of isolation and failed sanctions.
I’m sure this is old news to you, but I want to lay out the full thought process. In light of these points, is a policy of engagement with Iran at all different from traditional American diplomacy? Negotiating with enemy states to find common interests and then maintaining those alliances with non-democratic ones.
What’s beginning to be “circular” is this discussion with you, triz. And my constant returns to correct your misterpretations. My comparison between SA and UK was in their government construct of part monarchy and part central government. That is not the theocractic structure of Iran. So your assumption is not correct.
So let’s go to your statement:
Absolutely good faith plays into the equation. One would think that you – who advocates for negotiations with the likes of Iran behind your beloved leader – would give that high marks. For isn’t that your purpose for sanctioning the Eunuch in Chief’s approach to speak with Iran? For “good faith” results?
However you leave out the distinction of the possibilities and actual fruition of, an albeit slow, improvement of government and human rights in the nations you mention. ala Russia and their abandonment of communism, the advent of more capitalist economics in China.
But perhaps you’ll enlighten me to an event with mass human abuse for political dissent in Saudi Arabia, as Iran does now.
The difference between “traditional” diplomacy – as you ask in your last paragraph – is that there were preconditions on some of the basics… none of which Iran is open to accepting. They have no intentions of changing their aggression in supporting anti-Israel terrorism, nor modernizing their theocracy to allow for human rights, free speech and plausible elections. The only way that will happen is from within.
Your excuses for sharia in Saudi Arabia, which arguably has the most repressive government in the Middle East, are you just baffling:
This is a joke right? The kind of mass human abuse we see now in Iran goes on every day in Saudi Arabia as a matter of course and policy. The Saudi people are forbidden from organizing, from criticizing the government and from any kind of protest; infringement on this is punishable by imprisonment or death. Their “central government” of ministers is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the King; who has final say on all government decisions – it is patently less democratic than that of Iran. Do you honestly think that no elections in SA is better than the flawed ones in Iran? That no protests or opposition in SA is better than the marginalized one in Iran? The fact that you try to minimize this by comparing them in monarchy and in draconian law to the UK or other unnamed countries makes your pro-democracy priorities abundantly clear.
Of course I do, Bush was right to strengthen alliances with SA just as Obama is right to attempt negotiations with Iran – my point, if it hasn’t been clear enough, is that our relationship with SA contradicts your assertion that the US is absolute in it’s support of democracy, not that it was the wrong thing to do.
What basic preconditions were met when Scowcroft toasted in China mere months after Tiananmen? Of course, in hindsight, we see that these governments would move towards reform – but at the time they were much more staunch enemies of Democracy than Iran is now. When it comes down to it, your argument against engaging with Iran has nothing to do with history or principles, but merely that you think it will not work. This is a fair and simple point – for example, I doubt how far we can get with engagement in North Korea, although I don’t think it hurts to try. But you selectively wrap it in principles of freedom and liberty so that you can claim Obama is un-American when he does something you simply disagree with. Partisan hackery at its worst.
Saudi Arabia the “most repressive”? Woof… lots of competition for that label in that region. In fact, NOW lists SA as the 9th worst place for women to live. Those worse, according to them?
1. Afghanistan
2. Democratic Republic of Congo
3. Iraq (after US, per them… mostly as a result of displacement)
4. Nepal
5. Sudan
6. Guatemala
7. Mali
8. Pakistan
9. Saudi Arabia
10. Somali capital, Mogadishu
What’s most interesting is that they cite abuse, genital mutilation, domestic violence, rape, illiteracy, ill-health, and deaths in childbirth for most of the countries.
What’s their beef with SA? “…women are treated as lifelong dependents, under the guardianship of a male relative. Deprived of the right to drive a car or mix with men publicly, they are confined to strictly segregated lives on pain of severe punishment.”
Call me wacky and zany but, as a female, I’d prefer “lifelong dependents” and no right to drive over the more brutal treatment of women in the other nations.
That said, I have repeatedly said to you they are not the icon of what we’d like to see in a ME nation. But they are far from the worst of the worst.
uh… rather like Obama’s czars, right?
It’s a monarchy… been that way since it’s inception. It wasn’t converted to that, or to Shariah law, via rebellion and coup. And I have also been on record here that if a population votes for Shariah law as rule of the land, it’s an entirely different matter than terrorists forcing such by seizing control via violence.
And yes, political parties and rallies are forbidden in SA. However the citizens are allowed to discuss reforms in such areas as education, women’s rights, labor rules, economics, and domestic abuse, as noted in Arab American News INRE an article about a hunger strike/fast protest in 2008. There are also demonstrations and protests (sorta) allowed, as they did in Dec 2008, protesting Israel and Gaza. As a matter of fact, the people of Qatif in eastern SA have a long history of street protests, with major demonstrations held in 1979, 2002 and 2006. Activists in Riyadh actually wrote to get permission (denied), while the Qatif population just did it… as they usually do. The Saud government just denied it happened.
On the second day of the Qatif protest, the police fired rubber bullets to break it up… they didn’t beat people to a pulp, use live ammo, and raid homes in the dead of night. That’s the Ayatollah’s method of crowd control. Rubber bullets have been used in the past by Britain in Northern Ireland. Now they use baton rounds or plastic bullets because they are faster, more accurate. I’d say that puts SA’s riot control on a par with Britain, yes?
Again I will stress, I do not consider SA a model of fairness and Muslim democracy. Nor do I give them the dubious label of the “most repressive” regime. They are what they have been since the beginning.
BTW, I know many ex military families that lived in SA. Their personal experiences do not jive with your personal views. And frankly, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt… since I’m quite sure they would not feel the same way about living in Iran.
Interesting list … in the region that leaves three US occupied/allied governments ahead of Saudi Arabia – stiff competition indeed. Read the Sate Dept. human rights reports (or the really lurid Amnesty one) for yourself – for one, female discrimination extends as far as punishing victims of rape for facing their accuser. But yes, their citizens are allowed to discuss reforms (that do not criticize the government or King) and protest (against the actions of other countries) 🙂 Of course, protesters have also been beaten and dispersed with live rounds, but the instances are too rare to make a point. I’ll concede that it’s hard to say who has the most repressive government, especially when we start factoring in the Janjaweed and such, but SA is certainly as bad or worse than Iran (US military & family aside) weather by coup or by King.
I feel we’ve been winding down here like two boxers in the last rounds of a long fight, but I would like to make a point about basic pre-conditions. When Reagan met with Gorbachev, the Soviet jails were filled with political prisoners, they possessed long and short range nuclear missiles, and their anthem proclaimed the eventual take-over of the entire planet; yet if Reagan had demanded preconditions he would’ve been laughed off the diplomatic stage, both internally and externally. Likewise for the other dictators. Why would a country give up a major bargaining chip just to sit down with the US? And if subsequent negotiations didn’t compensate them, why wouldn’t they just re-instate the policy? Moreover, has any sovereign nation ever actually agreed to preconditions on the scale that we’re demanding from Iran? If not, can we recognize this preconditions rhetoric for what it is – a way to justify isolation and military action rather than an actual diplomatic tool?
Preconditions? Pershing missiles and SDI, caused a bit of angst with the Soviets. There were preconditions, he was never laughed of any stage with them, but he did walk away from the negotiating table leaving them with nothing, also pulled aides out of scheduled negotiations. He started with tough talk and later softened it, Gorbi bit on it and the rest is history. Obama will never be a Reagan:
Wilfred McCay reviews D’Souza’s book “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n131/ai_20632403/
Soviet Union’s political prisoners offered hope by Reagan’s speeches are some how equivalent to the Twelvers habit of stoning women, and hacking their protesters to death? If anyone is getting laughed at by our enemy, it’s Obama, they’re reading him like a first grade primer.
I’ve read through portions of the book online and I still don’t see anything about preconditions; nor is this present in the minutes of the summits themselves. Reagan made strategic moves that secured US interests and motivated the Soviets to come to the table – he never put up hurdles for them to cross in getting there. In fact, it seems like he was more interested in direct negotiations than those around him, check out this blast from the past:
Sound familiar?
I actually had a comment that got lost in a system freeze yesterday, triz.
Reagan’s “preconditions” were already implemented when he came to the table with Gorbachev in 1985… ala the Reagan Doctrine to supply any indigenous anti-communist movement with military and materials. Guerillas in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua were happy to be beneficiaries. Then combine it with the liberation of Grenada in ’83, and a peace-time military build up to the tune of $1.5 tril, and Reagan had effectively stopped the Russian communist advances in the 3rd world countries cold.
First, you should note that when Reagan came to office the Brezhnev Doctrine (once a communist country, always a communist country) was quite successful. In the Vietnam era between 1974 and 1980, ten countries had fallen to the Soviets. Greneda changed that, and the Russians knew they had a POTUS with every intent on chopping their empire.
Why do you think the Old Guard accepted Gorbachev to begin with? They knew their strategies were failing, and Gorbachev knew he’d break the Russian bank if he attempted to go head to head with a US arms race. They were no longer gaining territory, but either losing it… or fighting to maintain power.
Reagan walked to the table with all the aces in the hands of the US because of his counterstrategy, and never backed down. And key to that was SDI. No way, no how was RR about to relinquish that vision. The only acquiescence on his part was to buck his own advisors… both those who wanted to “reward” Russia (which he had no intention of doing), and those that didn’t want to take a chance on Gorbachev. Reagan did. He was, after all, admitting opening that Lenin’ism was not working. Reagan saw an opportunity in the leadership change. He got Gorbachev to happily accept the Zero Option because the other options were unthinkable.
So…. “Preconditions”? It was Reagan’s prep work prior to hitting the negotiation table that made what you consider “preconditions” obsolete. Russia was already floundering, knowing they were between a rock and a hard spot because of Reagan’s years of strategy before coming to the table.
Interesting on those chapters, and the one you picked. Sofaer, a legal advisor to the State Dept, came into that position only after the above arms build up, Reagan Doctrine and Grenada had transpired. To read his commentary, you’d think that Reagan was all appeasement like Obama.
Inevitably we’re back to the “preconditions vs. preparations” argument. Preconditions are something you enforce on the opposite party before allowing them to negotiate (and in a way let them control the debate); preparations are something enforce on yourself to establish leverage with which to negotiate. Obviously telling Iran that we won’t talk to them until they stop enriching uranium is not the same as developing missile defense before we talk with the Soviets. So have true preconditions ever worked? History showed that Reagan had done the necessary preparations to have strong leverage, though many of the people who disagreed with him then repeat the same complaint with respect to Iran.
So what do we have: It’s perfectly reasonable to negotiate and ally yourself with an internally repressive or un-democratic state (like Saudi Arabia) as long as we share external common interests that are benefited; It’s also perfectly reasonable to engage with enemy states as long as we have the proper leverage – in fact, even failed negotiations (as was Reagan’s first summit) are useful to open lines of communication and size-up the needs of the enemy. Essentially what you’re saying is “negotiations are good when they work“.
Iran is obviously different from the Soviet Union, and our openings for leverage are much smaller, but we’ve been playing this preconditions game for decades now – either Bush’s silent preparations are enough and it’s time to meet or they aren’t working and it’s time to meet. Regardless, you may not believe that Obama has done the necessary preparations in this case, as Kraut and Buckley did with Reagan, but his high-level approach to diplomacy is certainly no departure from how we’ve dealt with difficult despots in the past.
Hard to be “back” to a preconditions v preparations” argument since we’ve never been there, triz. I’ll simplify yet one more time… Reagan’s preparations of superior arms and thwarted Soviet inroads to enlarging empire led to enforceable preconditions… ala zero option and SDI is non-negotiable. The Soviets were well aware that Reagan would be coming in with arms discussions and wouldn’t be budging.
Iran’s preconditions not only include enrichment, but recognizing Israel. If they have no intent to move on either point, any negotiation is moot, and Obama has no bag of tricks in preparations to change their mind.
You still place Saudi in a category I don’t. Also moot to drag out that argument. Just because you believe they are the “most repressive” regime doesn’t make it true. Done with you there.
Failed negotiations leading to future successes? Perhaps. But not with a current regime that won’t budge unless preparations are done to corner them. Negotiating with Arafat was an utter waste of time. It did not lead to future successes. Only when Abbas came to power was that door opened. The same applies to Iran. Unless there is a regime change, or additional leverage gained, it’s a vicious circle in Dante’s levels of Hell.
Your concept of “high-level approach to diplomacy” actually translates into what constitutes a moral equivalency approach. Empty as the Zero suit himself, and bears no resemblence to any one save da Jimmah Carter himself. Dependence upon moral equivalene as leverage falls on deaf ears with the likes of the Ayatolla, Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah. Probably because they’re laughing too loudly at the Eunuch in Chief.
Btw, let’s not pretend that the zero option was a forceful maneuver – it was a bi-lateral move for disarmament, including many strategic positions in Europe. Read The Hammer’s response on that point as well (and I’m mostly pointing this out because I just found that you can search newspaper archives on Google; 80’s Krauthammer alone is worth all the effort that must’ve gone in to this – why do these dreadful pundits still have credibility?).
A “bi-lateral move”? You think this was a US concession? News flash… Reagan’s goal was for both superpowers to reduce nuclear stockpiles. His words to Gorbachev?
That is a man standing firm on preconditions and conditions. It was not a concession, but part of his negotiations all along.
You can persist against the “most repressive” statement, but a sharia government is repressive and un-democratic by definition, and yet we have no problems negotiating with them. So we can skip the moral outrage when Obama proposes talking with Iran.
This kind of parsing is pure sophism – the preconditions we’re talking about are enforced against the other party, not yourself, prior to negotiations. Reagan went into the negotiations with certain internal positions that he was not willing to back down on, he did not force Gorbachev to make concessions before these negotiations were held like Bush had done with Iran. Obama, too has emphasized that there are certain issues which he will not change, that he’s not going to Iran with potentially endless appeasement. If you want to call that preconditions I won’t argue over the syntax. You act like he’s going to talk with Iran and come back with Michelle in a burka – an agreement to negotiate is not an agreement to appease.
INRE Reagan, I never argued that this was a concession, but that it was a compromise. In hind-sight, it was one that was beneficial to the US, but at the time many saw it as a strategic blunder (my link to Krauthammer had him eagerly anticipating doomsday, for example). Likewise, Obama can work towards a compromise that benefits the US, especially now that Iran is internally unstable. The specifics are a whole separate debate, but we do have some leverage in working multi-laterally with Europe, Russia, and the Saudis (more at BICOM, and CFR then and now). As with Reagan, we do not know for sure if these compromises can be negotiated, but we must stop letting Iran effectively dictate the terms of the debate by expecting preconditions before even getting to the table.
What’s this “we” stuff, kemosabi? Speak for yourself and your own moral outrage. Just because you feel that way, the rest of the world doesn’t have to, nor does it make you correct. It is your opinion… period. And a very narrow-minded one at that.
Reagan showed up with a stacked deck and knew Gorbachev/Russia had to make the concessions, or bankrupt their nation. Bush had no such stacked deck, and neither does Obama. Bush just recognized a waste of time. If you’d pay attention, you’d know the int’l community has been engaging Iran in nuke talks all along, absent the US. And that’s accomplished what?
Spoken like a true, uneducated westerner. Don’t know much about the Muslim attitudes INRE negotiations, do you? Hint… go back thru Pakistan’s history with the Taliban and their militant factions and you’ll get clue. The short of it? Sign of weakness, and is disregarded. Promise and agree all you want. It is not honored, and the appeaser is dishonored. You view the enemy as if they were western in their culture and belief. Which is why you’re not in charge of diplomacy and foreign affairs.
A compromise is when you yield some of what you want. Considering that Reagan’s goal was both nations reducing nuke capability, it was not a compromise. He got exactly what he walked in there to get… zero option in 1986, and SDI still a demand. The INF came one year after. All done in two years since they first sat down at the table in 1985.
Who cares? Reagan did not see it as a strategic blunder, and he was correct. You will always have advisors and pundits that dissent. Why do I care what Krauthammer said at the time? I agree with him sometimes, and others not. He is not the guiding light for my opinions and analyses.
The big Zero sealed his fate on Iran with his wishy washy approach. He demonstrated no convictions for freedom and value for human rights until the rest of Europe led the way. By not supporting the rights of the supporters (without actually supporting either scumbag candidate), an opportunity was lost. Now that it’s known thru the world that the current instilled regime is illegitimate, and watched their violent crowd control, no leader can shake hands with Iran on a deal and walk away without blood on their own hands. Obama’s lost… just not figured it out yet.
BTW, as I pointed out, Reagan did not “compromise” since he went into the agreement demanding both the US and USSR reduce arms. You will note the only “compromise” Obama is suggesting is on behalf of Israel… which he has no right to promise.
@trizzlor:
Yep, it sounds familiar, confirms what D’Souza was saying in his book. Reagan had all kinds of critics, they turned out to be wrong and then the wall went down.
My daughter has a little tiny piece of that wall and a photo of the dismanteling of it that she had made into a poster. Ahh, memories.
Your outrage and insistence that the US unquestionably stands behind the force of democracy. If you’re not even willing to concede that the Kingdom is un-democratic then let’s stop pulling teeth over this. Perhaps your intent was to demonstrate the fruitlessness of negotiation by example 🙂
This is arm-chair sociology; “Muslim attitudes” were not a problem during US/Israeli negotiation with Egypt and Jordan.
Wonderful, and Obama does not see engagement as a strategic blunder, so your claims to the contrary can be discounted just as history has discounted those of the 80’s neo-cons?
So the Iranian violence is worse than Tienanmen and the Soviet regime? We seem to have walked away fine with those deals. For all your moral bluster, it has no basis in previous successful US foreign policy; your main contention is simply that you think negotiation is a waste of time.
Bingo.
Your problem, triz, is associating everything “sharia” with “undemocratic”. I’m sure Britian, who has a parallel Sharia judicial system would take issue with your misinterpretation. Additionally, Saudi is a monarchy who defers their code and laws to Sharia law. This differs somewhat from a pure theocracy, as in Iran.
“Muslim attitudes” were not a problem with the US/Israeli negotiations because Egypt and Jordan are not Iran and the Iranian leadership. Nor were they dealing with jihad groups and official terrorists (Hamas), but Fatah and Abbas.
A CIC has every right in the world to pursue the wrong path. And we can all rest assured Obama has every intention of taking us on the wrong path.
Negotiation with leadership that refuses to budge of evolve is a waste of time. China has evolved economically, tho not on human rights. Soviets abandoned communism and their empirical quest. Iran hasn’t budged one bit on Israel, or their enrichment program. Why should they? Obama’s busy trying to set them up with nuke power and proxy enrichment.
Your “bingo” confirms that you, also, recognize that negotiating with Iran serves no purpose.