Foreign Policy Folly

Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. He has yet to get a major challenge correct, from North Korea to Honduras to Iran. As to Iran, Obama is still holding out hope for talks with the theocracy and now has taken indefensible and wholly counterproductive position that there should be no new sanctions imposed on the theocracy for their brutal repression of the Iranian people.
________________________________________________________

This guy, honest to God, is worse than Neville Chamberlain. This from Haaretz:

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.

. . . U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members. . . .

Read the entire article.

This is insane and insidious in equal measure. How many things are wrong with this? By my count, at least seven.

One, this tells the theocrats not only that their brutality and repression will have no international consequences, but more importantly that Obama will not act out of concern for how overboard the theocracy might react. In other words, Obama is giving the Iranian regime power over our foreign policy. This is Neville Chamberlain territory. This is how France and England of the 1930's responded to Hitler's provocations.

Two, this tells the people risking life and limb to protest this brutal and corrupt regime that they are on their own. They will find no support from an Obama administration that is prioritizing talks with the illegitimate theocrats. As an aside, the Obama administration not only does not support the spread of democracy, but if we include Honduras in the mosaic, then it appears that Obama is willing to actively act against democracies under threat if it somehow serves Obama's personal agenda It is certainly not serving the best interests of America.

Three, there is every reason to believe a revolution that throws the theocrats out of power and dismantles the IRGC would remake the Middle East overnight. It is not a panacea for all ills, but it sure is a panacea for many of them - the nuclear issue, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Sudan, and Bahrain are at the top of the list. So what is Obama doing to support a revolution? The regime is in deep trouble economically from a combination of Bush sanctions, massive corruption and Ahemdinejad economic mismanagement. A large portion of the population want to see the theocrats out. So why are we not seeking deep international sanctions on the regime in an attempt to push it over the brink?

Four, what in the history of the Iranian theocracy leads Obama to believe that they will respond to restraint and gestures of good will? Iran negotiated directly with us over Iraq - all the while they were killing our soldiers and attempting to Lebanize the country. Indeed, there is nothing in the theocracy's thirty bloody years of existence to suggest that they negotiate in good faith or that they have any intention of altering their behavior, particularly towards us. In a post the other day, Michael Ledeen said:

For those who wish to think clearly about Iran, there are two fundamental facts:

* the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at war with us ever since the overthrow of the shah in early 1979;

* the savagery they have unleashed on the people of Iran is precisely what they want to do to us.

There is a third fundamental fact that Ledeen has previously mentioned.

"Iranian resources are largely devoted to the cause of jihad, not to Iran per se. If Iran goes down the drain, but a new caliphate is created, first in the region and then globally, that’s success by their standards.

In other words, the primary motivator of Iran's theocracy is to spread the Khomeinist revolution. Everyone from Khomeini to Khameini to Ahmedinejad has been absolutely clear on this point. And they see no moral constraints on their actions to achieve their goal. Sec. of Def. Gates summed it up perfectly when he said last year that "everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike." This is a regime with no morality and no conscience, just blind ambition to retain power and to spread itself throughout the world like a cancer. They resemble no nation so much as Nazi Germany in the mid-1930's. And in relation to their prime motivators, failing to impose sanctions will have zero impact on the Iranian regime's behavior. It does nothing to threaten their hold on power, nor their ability to spread their revolution.

Five, what in the history of negotiations on the nuclear issue with the EU-3 or like groups suggests to the Obama administration the unilateral talks will have the slightest impact on Iranian behavior? Indeed, the last such meeting, in July 2008, ended with Iran refusing to talk about the nuclear issue and, instead, making a proposal for a format for an "open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process" that, said one of the European negotiators, “would take a minimum of several years” if implemented.

Six, what makes Obama think that Iran will not act offended and blame the world for their internal dissent wholly irrespective of the the U.S. and Europe do? That is precisely what the theocracy is doing today. That is why Mousavi is being called an agent of the U.S., with calls for his "arrest for treason" in the theocracy's major newspaper. It is why Khameini in his Friday sermon blamed the unrest on the UK, the US and Israel. It is why workers for the British embassy now languish in Iranian prison, awaiting a kangaroo court.

Seven, and lastly, what does Obama think that he can possibly offer Iran to make it change its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran has rejected the entire panoply of carrots the West could offer. The only reason the theocracy might cut a deal now would be if whatever Obama proffered would help the theocracy retain power. In other words, unless Obama is prepared not merely to ignore the brutalized people of Iran, but actively connive in their repression, going forward with unilateral or bilateral talks and refraining from imposing sanctions make no sense.

It would be hard to imagine a more counterproductive foreign policy than that carried out to date by Team Obama. I can recall no President, even Jimmy Carter, being close to this bad. And I am willing to bet we are only seeing the half of it. We know Obama has cut all funding for promotion of democracy in Iran from next year's budget. Anyone want to bet that the CIA and the rest of our covert operators are being instructed to do nothing to support the unrest in Iran? Obama is not merely a weak President, he is a dangerous one.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran, Nukes, & Anne Applebaum

Anne Applebaum is an exceptional columnist whose work I usually admire. But she has completely lost the plot in today's column. It is being kind to suggest that she even went to the trouble of mailing this one in.

Ms. Applebaum believes that Iraq has caused our nation “collateral damage.” According to Ms. Applebaum, things are getting better in Iraq, but any optimism "is totally unwarranted." Ms. Appelbaum postulates that the war in Iraq, irrespective of whether Iraq becomes a functioning Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East, has not been worth the “price we have paid.” She defines the "price" to be that our conduct of the war in Iraq has “invigorated anti-Americanism” and that “our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence.”

Those sound similar to talking points right out of John Kerry’s Presidential campaign. The problem with such moral preening is that it just doesn’t hold water. Anti-Americanism has been rampant throughout Europe for decades. It was not created by our actions in Iraq, nor exacerbated by it. The anti-American leaders of Europe, specifically Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germany, predated President Bush and 9-11. And they did not get reelected. Germany's Der Spiegel and Britain's BBC have been pumping out grossly anti-American screed for as far back as I can remember. Regardless, whatever may have been the case, today, our standing internationally is stronger than it has been in years. Pro-American leaders have been elected the France, Germany and Britain and the EU is moving closer to us as a whole. And that is just a part of the story. Charles Krauthammer tells us the facts.

And as to military incompetence – where in God’s name is Ms. Applebaum getting that. Our military has performed brilliantly throughout the Iraq and Afghan operations. In terms of the mantle of incompetence, perhaps Ms. Applebaum should consider nominating Generals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, along with the rest of the Congressional Democrats who have done all they can to hamstring the military for the past year, including trying to strangle the surge before it even began. The only place they would have led us to is certain defeat. As to whether we should have adopted a counterinsurgency strategy earlier, there was no push to do so until after the bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome in 2006. Iraq was well on its way to being pacified before that terrorist attack changed everything. Ms. Apllebaum is attempting to rewrite history with a very broad and wholly inaccurate brush.

Ms. Applebaum then amazingly asserts that, because we invaded Iraq and Iraq turned out not to have WMD, America cannot possibly be believed in its assertion that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal. She suggests that no one in the EU-3, the troika of Britain, Germany and France who are currently negotiating with Iran over Iran’s nuclear program, nor for that matter the nations of greater Europe believe that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal:

Certainly no expert committee in existence could convince Europeans (or anyone else) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons or even that Iran intends to build them.

So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing any United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.

That sounds like the mating cry of the Kos Kids. I did not expect ever to see that from Ms. Applebaum. One, I am not aware of a single nation whose intelligence services were not convinced that Iraq had WMD’s. And as Sadaam Hussein has admitted, he even bluffed on this issue for the benefit of Iran, believing that IAEA inspectors would go away and that France would keep the US from invading. As to Ms. Applebaum’s suggestion that if the US intelligence services were wrong once, they can never be trusted again, that is one, suicidal, and two, completely ignoring reality on two key points.

The first is that the difference between Iraq’s alleged WMD’s and Iran’s nuclear program could not be greater. We know Iran has a nuclear program. And there is enough information in the public record that any objective observer would reasonably conclude that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal. Perhaps Ms. Applebaum does not discuss this information with her friends in the chattering classes of Europe. Assuming that is the case, I have laid out the information in the public record in the post below.

Two, every member of the EU 3 firmly believes that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Again, we are not talking about the chattering classes who inhaled anti-Americanism during their schooling in multiculturalism as toddlers, but the leaders of the EU 3. President Sarkozy has clearly stated his belief that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Gordon Brown, Britain’s PM, stated that he is not ruling out war with Iran and is calling for sanctions to stop the development of Iran’s heart, it’s oil and gas industry, in its tracks. Angela Merkel of Germany has said “We are determined to prevent the threat posed by an "Iranian military nuclear program."

The one valid point Ms. Applebaum makes in this horrendous article is that there are a lot of people worried that striking Iran might not destroy their nuclear program and that it might lead to an explosion of terrorism. Fair enough. I do not think that there is a person alive who would prefer that this whole matter be concluded diplomatically. So what is Ms. Applebaum’s solution?

If you guessed that it is to bury her head as deep in the sand as it can possibly go, you’re right:

[We must keep our] [f]ingers crossed, that those who say Iran's nuclear bomb is years away are right. Fingers crossed, that maybe Iran really does just want a civilian nuclear program. Fingers crossed, that if Iran gets nukes, its government will behave responsibly.

That is craven and suicidaly unrealistic, given what we know of Iran’s theocracy and Middle East radicalism. As outlined here, Iran’s theocracy does not operate according to Western logic, and there is every reason to fear nuclear attack, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear blackmail from the bellicose terrorists that currently govern Iran if they are allowed to create a nuclear arsenal.

Of equal consideration is that of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. Iran’s Khomeinist Shia theocracy presents a mortal threat not just to the West, but to the Sunni countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, all of whom are now beginning nuclear programs. If we acquiesce in Iran’s nuclear program, then we will see it replicated throughout the Middle East. And the chances of nuclear terrorism or an apocolyptic exchange grows exponentially with such proliferation. The mortal threat posed by Iran having a nuclear arsenal almost pales in comparison to thoughts of a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia.

While I share Ms. Applebaum’s concern’s with attacking Iran to stop their nuclear program, the thought of allowing it to mature has far greater downsides. And as to this particular column by Ms. Applebaum, it is the nadir of her journalistic career.

Update: McQ is similarly unimpressed.

Read More...

Summary only...